Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Spending Dominance Continues


Barack Obama continues to outspend John McCain on television and is forcing the Republican to put money into states once considered GOP strongholds. (Photo by Jae C. Hong of the Associated Press)

Amid speculation that Barack Obama could raise more than $100 million in the closing two months of the campaign, the Illinois senator continued to outspend John McCain drastically on television over the last week in a series of battleground states.

Reports obtained by The Fix detailing spending by the two campaigns as well as the Republican National Committee show that Obama dropped more than $32 million on television in 17 battleground states between Oct. 7 and Oct. 13 -- an increase of $12 million over what he spent between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6.

During that same time period, McCain spent approximately $10 million on ads in 14 states (the Arizona senator is not on television in Indiana, Michigan or Montana) while the RNC's independent expenditure effort disbursed $6 million more in eight states.

All told, Obama outspent McCain on television last week at a better than three to one rate while he outpaced the combined spending of McCain and the RNC by approximately a two to one margin.

That includes a nearly $3 million spending edge in Florida, a $2.8 million advantage in Virginia and a $1.3 million margin in Ohio among others.

(Full spending details are available after the jump.)

More problematic for McCain than the spending disparity is the fact that Obama is dramatically upping his spending in a series of red states -- evidence that he is almost entirely on offense with just three weeks left before election day.

In Florida, for example, Obama is now spending just shy of $5 million a week on television -- a $1.8 million (!) increase from just a week ago. The same pattern is apparent in Indiana (a $900,000 increase in ad spending over the past week), Missouri ($1.4 million increase) and Virginia ($2.3 million increase).

McCain, too, has upped his buys considerably over the last week but the majority of his increased spending is in states Republicans carried with ease in recent presidential election. He bumped up his buy by more than $700,000 in North Carolina (a state President Bush won with 56 percent in 2004) and more than $600,000 in Missouri (Bush 53 percent).

Obama's decision -- announced on June 19 -- to make history as the first presidential candidate to forgo public financing for the general election has born considerable fruit in the months since he made it.

The virtually unlimited fundraising potential Obama has demonstrated since that decision has allowed him to make good on a pledge to alter the traditional red state/blue state divide and force McCain to spend his much more limited resources on defense rather than offense.

While Obama is now seriously competitive in a number of states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004 -- Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Montana, Indiana, Ohio, etc. -- McCain has extremely limited opportunities to flip states Sen. John Kerry won in 2004.

In other words, Obama's fundraising edge has served a dual purpose: it has forced McCain to fight for ground that Republicans thought they would never have to worry about this close to the election AND it has narrowed McCain's pickup opportunities to New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

As we have written before, spending is not conclusive when it comes to determining the outcome of the election -- now just 20 days away. But, in an election where the playing field is so heavily tilted in the favor of Democrats, Obama's spending edge in crucial states makes McCain's task that much harder.

Top Media Buys, Week of Oct. 7-13
Market Spending Totals
Colorado
  • Total spent:
    $2.5 million
  • Advantage:
    +$510K, Obama
Florida
  • Total spent:
    $6.5 million
  • Advantage:
    +$2.9M, Obama
Indiana
  • Total spent:
    $2.7 million
  • Advantage:
    +$1.1M, Obama
Iowa
  • Total spent:
    $1.2 million
  • Advantage:
    +$30K, Obama
Maine
  • Total spent:
    $372,000
  • Advantage:
    +$222K, McCain
Michigan
  • Total spent:
    $2.3 million
  • Advantage:
    +$2.3M, Obama
Minnesota
  • Total spent:
    $1.3M
  • Advantage:
    +$67K, Obama
Missouri
  • Total spent:
    $2.8 million
  • Advantage:
    +$1.2M, Obama
Montana
  • Total spent:
    $250,000
  • Advantage:
    +$250K, Obama
New Hampshire
  • Total spent:
    $1.4 million
  • Advantage:
    +$811K, Obama
North Carolina
  • Total spent:
    $3.9 million
  • Advantage:
    +$310K, Obama
New Mexico
  • Total spent:
    $1.1 million
  • Advantage:
    +$330K, Obama
Nevada
  • Total spent:
    $1.5 million
  • Advantage:
    +$540K, Obama
Ohio
  • Total spent:
    $7 million
  • Advantage:
    +$1.3M, Obama
Pennsylvania
  • Total spent:
    $6.4 million
  • Advantage:
    +$1.2M, Obama
Virginia
  • Total spent:
    $5 million
  • Advantage:
    +$2.8K, Obama
Wisconsin
  • Total spent:
    $2.6 million
  • Advantage:
    +$358K, Obama

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 15, 2008; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Republicans Rally the Troops Against Mahoney
Next: The Hofstra Hoopla: Handicapping the Final Debate

Comments

Just in case you haven't already seen it, here's some interesting information re "Joe the Plumber."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/16/02217/845

Posted by: Taiyo1937 | October 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

A sure sign Obama has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it: we're getting lots of Obama ads in TEXAS. It's a safe bet Obama won't win Texas (if he does, we're talking Historic Landslide). Maybe he's trying to help local Democrats; I don't know. But ads approved by Obama are running frequently.

Posted by: Budikavlan | October 15, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

WOMEN OF AMERICA UNITE!
UNITE AGAINST THE SEXIST MEDIA AND BARACK HUSSEIN’S MUGGING OF VICE PRESIDENT, SARAH PALIN!

Women must unite against the liberal media vicious, sexist, cruel, demeaning, contemptuous UN-AMERICAN, unfair, unprofessional, unrelenting and blatantly biased treatment against Vice President Sarah Palin and acting blatantly in favor of Barack Hussein Obama during this unprecedented historic quest for the presidency!

Barack Hussein Obama claims a mightier throne, one forged in liberal ideals of justice and equality and hope, BUT he has benefited mightily from sexism in this campaign, and has remained silent. Obama supporters seem very happy with the sexist way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by Sarah Palin, and many believe that most of the "venom" in the campaign is coming from supporters of Obama.

WOMEN OF AMERICA UNITE IN THIS DEFINING MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. To ensure we can grow up from the male dominated government that has caused many of the problems our country is facing; to a country where men and women are equal partners in governance.

WOMEN OF AMERICA UNITE!
UNITE AGAINST THE SEXIST MEDIA AND BARACK HUSSEIN’S MUGGING OF VICE PRESIDENT, SARAH PALIN!
VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN

Posted by: Manolete | October 15, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I AM AMAZED TO FIND SO MANY ASININE STATEMENTS FROM PEOPLE ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. SEN. OBAMA IS NO THREAT TO ANYONE'S JOB, IS NOT ISLAMIC, AND IS WILLING TO TACKLE A JOB THAT HAS LOST ITS DEFINITION UNDER REPUBLICAN RULE. HE IS HOWEVER NAIVE TO THINK THAT AMERICA IS MATURE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT HIS PRESENCE WITHOUT THE RHETORIC MANY ARE SPEWING IN THESE COMMENTS.

JOHN McCAIN IS NOT THE ONE FOR THE JOB AND THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.

ROMNEY WAS THE BETTER CHOICE AND I AM CERTAIN MANY REPUBLICANS ARE AWARE OF THAT NOW AND WISH THEY COULD RE-VOTE.

SARAH PALIN IS BEING PIMPED BY THE PARTY. SHE IS NOT REQUIRED TO REALLY BE ABLE TO LEAD BUT RATHER DISTRACT AMERICANS AND SHE IS VERY GOOD AT THAT.

McCAIN/PALIN, A TICKET FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE READY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEY WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER.

OBAMA WILL NOT RULE ALONE WE WILL ALL PLAY A PART IN TURNING THINGS AROUND.

IF THE REPUBLICANS WIN, WE WILL FORFIET ON OUR DEBT TO CHINA AND THE CHINESE WILL FORECLOSE.

Posted by: thevoodoodoll | October 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I AM AMAZED TO FIND SO MANY ASININE STATEMENTS FROM PEOPLE ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. SEN. OBAMA IS NO THREAT TO ANYONE'S JOB, IS NOT ISLAMIC, AND IS WILLING TO TACKLE A JOB THAT HAS LOST ITS DEFINITION UNDER REPUBLICAN RULE. HE IS HOWEVER NAIVE TO THINK THAT AMERICA IS MATURE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT HIS PRESENCE WITHOUT THE RHETORIC MANY ARE SPEWING IN THESE COMMENTS.

JOHN McCAIN IS NOT THE ONE FOR THE JOB AND THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.

ROMNEY WAS THE BETTER CHOICE AND I AM CERTAIN MANY REPUBLICANS ARE AWARE OF THAT NOW AND WISH THEY COULD RE-VOTE.

SARAH PALIN IS BEING PIMPED BY THE PARTY. SHE IS NOT REQUIRED TO REALLY BE ABLE TO LEAD BUT RATHER DISTRACT AMERICANS AND SHE IS VERY GOOD AT THAT.

McCAIN/PALIN, A TICKET FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE READY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEY WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER.

OBAMA WILL NOT RULE ALONE WE WILL ALL PLAY A PART IN TURNING THINGS AROUND.

IF THE REPUBLICANS WIN, WE WILL FORFIET ON OUR DEBT TO CHINA AND THE CHINESE WILL FORECLOSE.

Posted by: thevoodoodoll | October 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

When Obama said he liked some of Ronald Reagan's ideas, this is what he was thinking of: how to destroy The Evil Empire by forcing them into a spending race they couldn't win.
What goes areound comes around. ;-)

Posted by: TomJx | October 15, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The recession everyone says is coming will begin on Nov 5, after Obama stops spending $$$ for campaign adds.

----

On another item

dhagan1's | October 15, 2008 3:56 PM post is inaccurate, what he claims Obama will do, the Bush/Paulsen is already doing.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | October 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Definitions of Socialism on the Web:

An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively by the government under some system or An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eventually eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class . Hey, Obama voters are you listening ? Or are you blind folded and walking the plank ! Democrat not voting for Obama.
Best wishes,

Democrat from Michigan

Posted by: dhagan1 | October 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Definitions of Socialism on the Web:

An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively by the government under some system or An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eventually eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class . Hey, Obama voters are you listening ? Or are you blind folded and walking the plank ! Democrat not voting for Obama.
Best wishes,

Democrat from Michigan

Posted by: dhagan1 | October 15, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, I donated another $200 to the Obama campaign over the weekend AND I gave $100 to MoveOn! Every time I read a post from our resident disreputable toxic blond (37th...) I am overwhelmed by an urge to donate more an get out and pound the streets, campaigning a little something I also did on Saturday and Sunday).

BTW, I campaigned in Springfield, in the poorest mostly white area of that town. Half of the households I went to had one or both of the primary providers unemployed. These people are hurting and they are desparate! With the exception of one nasty old coot, every single person was either definitely voting for Obama or strongly leaning toward voting for him.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"There is a point of diminishing returns and Obama is way past it. Everyone knows the candidates and the additional spending by Obama is not going to help him one little iota."

Actually, to go by the polls, Obama's returns are looking pretty good.

Posted by: scurley1 | October 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

One has to wonder at McCain's strategy. What's he doing still spending in IA, MN, WI, and PA when he's down by >10 points in all of them? And what's he doing only half-heartedly defending VA and FL, states he absolutely has to win? Absolutely inexcusable. Is Mark Penn running McCain's campaign too?

Posted by: novamatt | October 15, 2008 11:58 AM

Obama's had some bad luck with his friends, but he sure has been BLESSED in his adversaries.

Posted by: light_bearer | October 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Surely, it’s no coincidence that the current economic collapse occurred only after six years of the Bush boom, and largely coincided with the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007."

In fact, it is; if you were paying attention, the current economic crisis has roots dating back to the 80s, and was severely exacerbated by the Bush economic agenda; this is just the bubble popping.

Running against Congress won't work; the Dems won Congress in 1930, and Hoover still got clobbered (FDR's running mate was even the Speaker of the House).

Posted by: scurley1 | October 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

At least McCain served for many years as influential chair of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:13 AM

Thank you KoZ. As if there weren't enough reasons already not to want McCain's erratic hand at the tiller.

Posted by: light_bearer | October 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

A Muslim couldn't do more harm to this country than the Mammon worshipers calling themselves Christians are.

Posted by: light_bearer | October 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

isjl asks a series of silly questions
"1) Where is Obama getting all this money?"

From volunteer donors.

"2) Isn't it hypocritcal for Obama to talk about "reforming and changing government" when he is spending $195 million on getting elected, more twice as much as McCain?"

No. John McCain is spending your and my tax dollars. Obama is spending donated money.

"3) What does this lavish spending say about how Obama will handle tax dollars?"

It says that Obama will not spend your and my tax dollars on getting elected. By asking donors to fund his campaign, he has saved $84 million in federal spending.

"4) What does Obama's comment to plumber Wurzelbacher say about what Obama REALLY intends to do with this country?"

It says that Senator Obama intends to ask much from those who have much to give. That's a biblical lesson.


"5) Does anyone really believe that once Obama wins the Presidency, with a majority liberal Democratic congress that cannot be checked?"

I suspect that Senator Obama will work with a Dem controlled Congress as well as, if not better than President Bush worked with a Repub controlled Congress. Heck, if they foul it up too much, the next Congressional elections are a short two years away. That's probably enough time for the Repubs to figure out what ran them over & regroup with better proposals for America.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who wants to think Obama is muslim, it's crazy. He was raised by his white mother and her white parents, his father was from Africa and was not a practicing muslim. If he was a practicing muslim he wouldn't have been with a white women. And, Obama funding is coming from his supporters, who want to see him elected as President. Everyone on these blogs, have some outlandish facts about Obama, he is just as white as he is black. Would it have been better if he was much lighter and married to a white woman. What about the bigots in congress that support McCain and one who is a ex KKK member. If you listen who hear the hate in McCain and Palin making all you suckers believe Obama is a terriorist loving, muslims who going have everyone praying to the east. Get real people, Obama is white too. I would rather have someone who was smart enough to get into Harvard then someone who got caught in the vietnam war, left his injured wife for a drug using rich heiress. Now that's on the real.

Posted by: onthereal | October 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Just a few questions:

1) Where is Obama getting all this money?

2) Isn't it hypocritcal for Obama to talk about "reforming and changing government" when he is spending $195 million on getting elected, more twice as much as McCain, who did not back down on his word to accept only federal financing of his campaign (Obama originally said he would, then reneged)?

3) What does this lavish spending say about how Obama will handle tax dollars? That is, will he say the ends justify any means?

4) What does Obama's comment to plumber Wurzelbacher say about what Obama REALLY intends to do with this country? Charles Barkley, an Obama supporter, said last night on Larry King Live that he supports Obama for one reason - He believes that it is right to redistribute wealth to poor people in this country and he believes Obama will do that.

5) Does anyone really believe that once Obama wins the Presidency, with a majority liberal Democratic congress that cannot be checked (by the way, isn't that scary to anyone?), he will limit new taxes only on people who make $250,000 (the actual number is now down to $200,000)? Especially given the current national debt and state of the economy, Obama will not realistically be able to do even 10% of his proposals without drastic tax increases. In the end, I believe, you will see higher taxes on everyone who makes more than (if we are all lucky) $60,000.

Posted by: isjl | October 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The GOP doesn't need to spend as much money. They know how to play the media so their GOP talking points are repeated ad nauseum, with no regard for truth and facts.

In 2004, the swift boaters spent relatively little money. Even though their claims were debunked (why else is the term 'swiftboating' now equated with political slander), the inane networks were treating both sides as just being of different opinions. How dishonest.

The same thing has happened with Ayers. The allegedly close 'association' has been disproven. Yet, will you hear any network or pundit bothering to ask why McCain would take money from and accept the endorsement of the woman who put Ayers on the board of her charitable Foundation (Leonore Annenberg)? If he is that loathsome, why is McCain taking money and proclaiming his endorsement from a patron of domestic terrorists???

What about the Palin's and their history with secessionists?

The hypocrisy is stunning, yet predictable.

With the help of the msm, who needs money?

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Allied with ACORN as Recently as 2006, Now Turns Cold Shoulder

October 13, 2008, Miami, FL - U.S. Senator John McCain's recent attacks on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) are puzzling given his historic support for the organization and its efforts on behalf of immigrant Americans. As recently as February 20, 2006, Senator McCain was the keynote speaker at an ACORN-sponsored Immigration Rally in Miami, Florida at Miami Dade College – Wolfson Campus.

Posted by: Maxwell_Smart | October 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"his funding is very questionable and some has been reported as coming from muslims or muslim groups which should scare anyone or make them wonder what kind of agenda obama is serving."

Yeah, thanks for telling me I should be a racist. I had forgotten.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I guess you sorta forgot something Cris--re. Barack Obama raising many millions of dollars more of campaign money than McCain and the Republicans--you forgot to add the many millions of dollars of free publicity the Democratic Party--controlled Main Stream Media is giving Obama, and the news-spin and censorship going on all favoring Obama and the Democrat Socialists.

Posted by: armpeg | October 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

his funding is very questionable and some has been reported as coming from muslims or muslim groups which should scare anyone or make them wonder what kind of agenda obama is serving. he has shown time and time again by words and actions that he is not serving our nation and doesn't care about constitutional freedoms or care about the family because he wants to tax us more. the group ACORN is not only guilty of voter fraud but obama gave money to them that should make anyone boiling mad. he has called us american names like "bitter" and that we "hang on to guns and religion" as for his information this country was built on judeo-christian values that we find in the word of God which is the Bible. this liberal anti God liberal socialist want to want to totally wash away all this country was built on and is. no americam should put up with that. vote for John McCain a man who loves this country and serves this country.

Posted by: diaco7529 | October 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

If he manages the country the same way he manages his campaign by utilizing the most creative, out of the box thinkers, then I believe he'll be a fine president. Very impressive!

Posted by: TheDiplomat | October 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Zouk writes:

"He needs to reassure the people that their world won’t unravel further and that under his steady leadership, the bumbling Democrats in Congress won’t be allowed to push a shaky situation to a full scale crack up."

Neither of which he's been able to articulate so far, at this late date in the campaign.

And painting the GOP's chances of taking back control of Congress as being out of reach(vote McCain to thwart Pelsoi-Reid), has no doubt endeared McCain to Congressional Republicans in tough races.

Ouch !

Posted by: mathas | October 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

TIME FOR A RADICAL CHANGE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

Taxpayers deserve independent representation with teeth. NOT suppliant gofers taking orders from special interests.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/10/electoral-process-urgent-change-is.html

Posted by: JamesRaider | October 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"If anyone is surprised that Obama is a top notch collector and spender of other people's money, than you are not paying attention. this is only the beginning."

I guess you'd prefer the current system - not collecting any taxes while turning a surplus into a deficit.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I spent $300 plus a day of cellphone calls in 2004 on behalf of Kerry.

I must say the $75 or so I spent on Obama, plus bumper sticker, buttons and yard sign, has been the best money I've ever spent. My state is "in play" like not since 1976. Or was it 1964?

Not only is Obama more efficient with his donations, he's got top notch people on the ground. I couldn't be happier with the Obama team in my town.

If he can run a campaign like this, I can't wait to see how he'll run our country. Because we are going to be in a heap of trouble, thanks to Bush Republicans. Which is all of them.

Many Republicans are, thankfully, jumping ship. Hey, I didn't know Dennis Hopper was one, did you?

http://www.jedreport.com/shipjumpers/

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

One has to wonder at McCain's strategy. What's he doing still spending in IA, MN, WI, and PA when he's down by >10 points in all of them? And what's he doing only half-heartedly defending VA and FL, states he absolutely has to win? Absolutely inexcusable. Is Mark Penn running McCain's campaign too?

Posted by: novamatt | October 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I predict Mccain will not say a thing about anything. Anything he would say can be answered with "What do you think John"? "Do you think I am a terrorists"? Then Mccain will have to actually defend Obama against the very rumors he has help spread. Mccain knows Obama hasn't done anything wrong and will look like a fool if he even brings up the lies he spreads on the stump with Obama sitting there. They will sit around a table talking and it will be about as boring as the other debates. Once Mccain says "Maverick", "Reach across the aisle" and "Ear marks", he is out of talking points.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

poor zouk. on this board all day every day for years now. now life, no job, as pathetic as ever.

ask the good nursey for some more meds, zoukie. this election is going to get you all out of sorts.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

To get out of a recession, you have to spend, spend, spend. You have to create make-work plans to fix the infrastructure, you have to support scholarships to keep students in school longer (and off the breadlines). If necessary, you have to print money and drop it off helicopters, but spend, spend, spend.

Once before in 1929, Republican greed created financial chaos, and Democrat F.D.Roosevelt fixed it with his New Deal.
This time it is up to Obama to come up with a New Deal of his own to get out us out of another Republican mess.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | October 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

--"Surely, it’s no coincidence that the current economic collapse occurred only after six years of the Bush boom, and largely coincided with the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse "--

Obama’s tells us that on March 22, 2007, he wrote a letter to Paulson et al about "rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market"

McCain says he wrote a letter of impending doom in a letter dated May 5, 2006

Go back to attacking Obama.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse
---------------
reply:

Mccain did write a letter but he lied about why he wrote it. It was about some accounting problems he wanted looked into. Nothing about what later happened. Mccain is the master of the half truth or total lie. It doesn't even matter to him the letter has been produced, he just keeps telling the lies knowing there are people who will believe anything if you say it enough.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It is not so much about the money behind the campaign. Instead, I am more amazed that Obama and his campaign put enough trust in the people for support, and vice versa, the people trust him to fight in our favor and make great effort to help bring about change; it is quite telling when people steadily contribute from their wallets. I have given almost on a basis, and I imagine that all of us supporters/donors appreciate that Obama is using it. We didn't give our money to just sit there. He's putting it to use. Good.

Apart from the money, that isn't why he's ahead in the state by state polls. He's talking much about the issues and to everybody. That is the reason why he's ahead, that and the entire well organized campaign. Way to go supporters!

Come on Ohio and Florida!! Lets change from the current direction. It's time for different results.

Posted by: Obama2008 | October 15, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

tncdel,

The only person using tax-dollars for this election cycle is McCain (e.g. with public financing -- the RNC on the other hand has been raking in money hands over fist from mega donor sugar daddies).

As far as your point about "free" health care, Obama's health care plan doesn't provide universal coverage.

It falls short of a single-payer system, which wouldn't be free either, but which would provide universal coverage, and would cost less per person than our current patch-work private insurance system (e.g. we spend about 30 to 40 percent more per person on health care for less coverage, and for worse health outcomes than other developed democracies which have universal health care systems).

Why a Republican would put the profits of private insurers and their CEOs ahead of the national interests is a strange notion to me.

Wait, it isn't that strange. Protecting the private profits of a few sugar daddies before public interest is the Republican philosophy. It works like a protection racket where health care CEOs rake in huge pay days, the CEOs and other officers then pour that money into the coffers of GOP legislators who in turn fix the laws to screw ordinary people. Maybe, just maybe the madness will stop this November.

Of course, the GOP base, which may have the lowest collective IQ of any voting block in U.S. history will be the last to figure it out. They still think Bush has been a very effective president.

Posted by: JPRS | October 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

TheWolf1 writes that Gov. Goodhair is in trouble in 2010 - I think if KBH runs against him in the R primary he is gone. But I do not see the connection to BHO ads.

BHO ads may help Doherty in CD 10. Is BHO running ads in Houston, DFW, SA, EP, the LRGV, and CC?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

complete braindead fool or mentally ill.

Posted by: drindl |


drindl returns to it's area of expertise.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

zouk apparently didn't get the memo. Obama is the Antichrist. Sarah Palin is the messiah.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I see kingofzouk is just as delusional as in the 2006 elction. After the landslide/blowout electing Obama, perhaps he will crawl, embarrased back into his cave for a while, as he did back then.

Anyone who calls themselves a republican at this point in time is either a complete braindead fool or mentally ill.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

He wrote a letter? Wow, you have finally found the single publication of his entire life. He didn't go on TV, he didn't make a speech, didn't introduce a bill.

Essentially he did what he has always done, nothing out of the ordinary!

The messiah will be the rubber stamp for the loony Pelousy and Reid partisan hacks. Carteresque ruin pending.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

This is a very complex issue and I among many of my friends are unsure on which candidate would be better for the economy. We created a blog with the intent to get more information about the political debates without all the emotions and bias while still using steps in logic and explaining all of their implications and relevance to the future of the economy. I am still undecided myself, thus am not here to sway you but rather to raise questions that we can all investigate together by using a source of unbiased info on the subject at hand. So, I ask you to please post a comment to my blog to offer your own analysis and best thoughts on the issue of the economy relevant to the current political debates to increase our knowledge on this complex subject. What if any is the causal relationship between each presidential candidate's stance on the economy and each of their "qualifications" to lead our country based on this economic view?

The link to the blog is:
http://mypoliticalinquiry.blogspot.com/

To post a comment click on comments under the first post. Thanks for your help in helping us choose the best for our future.

Posted by: laurentsoccer16 | October 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

--"Surely, it’s no coincidence that the current economic collapse occurred only after six years of the Bush boom, and largely coincided with the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse "--

Obama’s tells us that on March 22, 2007, he wrote a letter to Paulson et al about "rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market"

McCain says he wrote a letter of impending doom in a letter dated May 5, 2006

Go back to attacking Obama.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I'd add that here in the Austin media market (local as well as cable news), Obama ads have proliferated over the past few weeks. Texas is unlikely to change from red to blue, but this is the first time in a long time that Democrats seem to have a real presence in electoral politics. Should Democrats choose to come home from their infatuation with oddball candidates (e.g., "Grandma" Strayhorn and "Kinky" Friedman) to legitimate politics, Republican Governor Rick Perry may well have to trim his sails going into his expected reelection bid in 2010. In other words, the Tom Delay bulldozer may finally be running out of gas.

Posted by: thewolf1 | October 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

We will see and I am glad you have accepted the fact he is going to win.


===========
If anyone is surprised that Obama is a top notch collector and spender of other people's money, than you are not paying attention. this is only the beginning.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

national polls now down to a mere three points difference.

The messiah is sinking fast. Especially if you consider that the historical polls are biased to the tune of ten points.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

BRADLEY EFFECT + ?ABLE ELECTRONIC VOTING = 2000 REDUX?

Obama needs to be aggressive tonight and NOT just sit on his "lead" -- because there may be no lead at all by Election Day.

Today's Politico lead story indicates that the Rev. Wright issue will be resurrected in McCain TV advertising... alongside of Rezko, Ayers and ACORN.


Obama should bring up the Alaska Independence Party; Todd Palin's membership in a group that advocates seccession from the U.S.; its founder's anti-American statements; and ask the question:

"Is your running mate Sarah Palin palling around with someone who pals around with enemies of the state?

If Obama lays back, he could see his lead diminish as the "fear factor" takes hold -- as it always seems to do in the waning days of recent presidential campaigns.

ARE THE McCAIN-PALIN CROWD AGITATORS THE SAME STORMTROOPERS WHO DO THIS:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens

What if McCain's real strategy is aimed NOT at voters, but at the apparachik?

McCAIN-PALIN'S 'FELLOW TRAVELER' INSINUATIONS:
WHAT IF U.S. SECURITY FORCES AGREE?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-palins-fellow-traveler-insinuations-what-if-u-s-security-forces-agree
OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I know there's only a $67,000 difference in Minnesota, but I've certainly noticed a disparity in ads here. While Franken and Coleman seem to be running even on ad time, Obama is certainly on the air more consistently.

Posted by: JohninMpls | October 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Best. Campaign. Ever.
If Obama runs the Presidency the way he has run his campaign, we are looking forward to seeing a renewal of America's faith in its government to deliver the goods.
Keep it going, people. We have less than three weeks and it is time to kick it up another notch.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | October 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1 responded

miantch quotes a plumber
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" "

Not necessarily. If the guy buys the business for cash & generates 250 to 280K profit each year, yeah, his taxes will go up. Suck it up, he can afford it. If he buys the business with a loan, the debt service on that loan will push his take-home profits lower. Maybe he'll buy himself better healthcare through the business, getting the write-off, lowering his take home income. Point being, people that are benefitting from living in this country - for instance, earning annual income in excess of a quarter million dollars - should be willing to pay their fair share for enjoying those benefits. If you want to spread that burden, help get more people into that income bracket.

------------------------
This is assuming that the business ownership is a form where the income of the business is passed through to the owners to be taxed at the personal income tax rate.
My take on taxes is that they are the rent we pay for the privilege of living in this great land, and the better off we are, the more likely we will be living in a nicer neighborhood, i.e., a high rent district.

Posted by: sensible | October 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The scare tactics and intimidation of the McShame/Failin ticket and the Republican Party are going to backfire this election cycle.

Posted by: santsteve | October 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"""I don't know any plumbers who make net $250,000 a year. By the way has anyone said exactly what that tax increases would be? If you netted $250,000 + you can afford to pay a few thousand more in tax if it will provide a little more benefit for society. Benefits by the way you your self will enjoy."""

Why should they when they are part of the group that already pays 95% of the taxes. How much more should they pay? also why should they pay for someone who can't be bothered to try and work hard enough to make more and don't tell it can't be done. I came from a single parent home, that sometimes depended on others to get food for holidays. Through hard work and a little luck I am now confortable, not rich but confortable. I don't expect the government to help me pay for my house. I made the right choices when I bought and can afford the payments. Healthcare, I have seen government funded health care in my travels over the world and no thanks. More tax breaks for the "poor". Why, most don't pay now and get money back from the tax payer.

""" I have no kids but schools taxes are the biggest single part on my property tax bill. That is just the way i goes, someone has to pay. Police, Fire department, public education, roads, rivers, parks, every thing we use everyday has to be paid for. There are no free rides. See how many would like it if when they have children they got a bill each year for $30,000 per child to educate them."""

They might start demanding the schools go back to teaching instead of whatever it is they are doing now.
-----------

"""miantch quotes a plumber
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" "

Not necessarily. If the guy buys the business for cash & generates 250 to 280K profit each year, yeah, his taxes will go up. Suck it up, he can afford it. If he buys the business with a loan, the debt service on that loan will push his take-home profits lower. Maybe he'll buy himself better healthcare through the business, getting the write-off, lowering his take home income. Point being, people that are benefitting from living in this country - for instance, earning annual income in excess of a quarter million dollars - should be willing to pay their fair share for enjoying those benefits. If you want to spread that burden, help get more people into that income bracket."""
It is now they job or responability to make it better for others. You get what you work for. Want to make more, go to night school, want more money in the bank, don't spend as much. Don't come looking for me and others to give you a handout. I don't mind helping but will not do it for you and then give it to you.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rchayes | October 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

John McCain now faces a vastly different campaign than he did a month ago.

He doesn’t need to outbid Obama with big plans or soaring rhetoric.

He needs to reassure the people that their world won’t unravel further and that under his steady leadership, the bumbling Democrats in Congress won’t be allowed to push a shaky situation to a full scale crack up.

He needs to make it clear that Obama has disqualified himself for leadership in a difficult time on three bases --- calling for bigger government and higher taxes, showing shady character and questionable values, and displaying hyper-partisanship and unpredictability.

After nearly two years of ceaseless and exhausting campaigning, John McCain now trails Barack Obama in what remains a close race.

Conventional wisdom says that disastrous economic news unavoidably assists Barack Obama, but why at a time of menace and insecurity should a desperate public turn automatically to an untried rookie with no background whatever in executive leadership or economics? At least McCain served for many years as influential chair of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

--"SPEND, SPEND, SPEND is Obama's credo.

Posted by: tncdel | October 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse "--

At a time when the federal government is spending 250 BILLION dollars to buy stocks in poorly run banks - well that calls sounds rather hollow to my ears.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

In all major polls, George W. Bush draws two-to-three times higher approval percentages than the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid Congress. As John McCain tartly observes, Congressional approval is “pretty much down to blood relatives and paid staffers.”

The campaign must re-focus the public’s attention on the fact that the Senate and House that they despise are being run by Democrats--- and that Barack Obama supports these people and means to extend their work. In this sense, a vote for Obama is truly a vote for “more of the same.” If the people recognize that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have provided disastrous leadership in Congress, why would they choose to put their ally and colleague in the White House?

Surely, it’s no coincidence that the current economic collapse occurred only after six years of the Bush boom, and largely coincided with the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007.

McCain should follow the example of one of his heroes, Harry Truman, and run energetically against the “disastrous Democratic Congress” and the prospect of giving these bozos undivided control of our federal government.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If anyone is surprised that Obama is a top notch collector and spender of other people's money, than you are not paying attention. this is only the beginning.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Chris of the Fix as well as the other political media pundits just don't get it!

Without a doubt money is needed in presidential politics, but this campaign will not be won by money but by the incredible smart strategy of the Obama campaign of community first initiatives like voter registration, internet donations, and a strong unifying message of CHANGE delivered by a strong steady leader.

America by large is fed up with GW Bush and his administration and Republicans in general over the past 8 years.

When nearly 90% of Americans polled say that America is on the wrong track, who in the hell has been driving the CAR for the last 7 years?

Simply put, Bush and the Republicans.

Posted by: AJ2008 | October 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign may be the best run campaign ever. Where are all of those pundits now who were asking, "Why can't Obama close the deal?" Yes, I know there are 20 days to go, but as an active Obama supporter I know the campaign is still gearing up, not celebrating.

Posted by: Byron5 | October 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

For, if he is elected, Obama intends to use our money to provide "free" medical care to the over 37 million illegals sucking the lifeblood out of our economy, and give them just about everything else at our expense.

Obama also wants to send hundreds of billions to foreign countries out of taxpayer coffers.

SPEND, SPEND, SPEND is Obama's credo.

And we will foot the bill for his extravagences.

Posted by: tncdel | October 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Holy ignorance Batman! Do you know that if it weren't for the "illegals" in this country doing the work that you aren't willing to do for minimum wage, our economy would collapse? Don't take my word for it, when the immigration debate came up in Congress two years ago, it was Republican Business interests that wanted to make sure we didn't deport all the illegals in the country - their businesses wouldn't survive.
If you want to deport all the "illegals" in this country that's fine with me, but you better be prepared to pick some vegetables, clean some hotel rooms and wash some dishes for 6 bucks an hour.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | October 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Who is this illiterate whackjob 'Texan.'

It's interesting that, like most republicans today, he can neither spell, write, or think.

Posted by: drindl | October 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

.
.
.
Texan2007 wrote: "And education...listen to the Howard Stearn tape of Obama supporters/voters and their agreeing with "where Obama stands on issues." They were McCain's!"

Which just proves that Obama is so much better than McCain, he can win using either platform.

Go back to your McKKKain campaign for a fresh talking point.

.

.

.

Posted by: Oand37thStreet | October 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

These are huge margins of difference, but not all of them are as significant as they seem. The most inflated difference you see is in Virginia. The reason is that nearly all of McCain's Virginia ad money has gone to central, southern, and western Virginia that target mostly people in that state. Obama's big spending is mainly the result of advertising in the DC media market. While that reaches a lot of people in northern VA, it also is wasting a lot of money reaching residents in DC and Maryland. Since McCain isn't spending in that multi-state media market, his spending has a lot more fat than McCain's more targeted ads. Obama still is beating him badly, but in Virginia it is not quite as much as those ad dollars might make it seem. The same might also be true of other media markets that serve many states; I am guessing this might also apply to New Hampshire spending and Pennsylvania, with much of the Obama Philly spending going to people who live in NJ (I may be way off on Philly since I don't know it well--please correct if I am wrong). Nonetheless, one possible benefit to Obama's DC media buys is that members of the national media, who shape the campaign narrative, see a lot more of his ads than McCain's. Lest I be accused of bias, I am a huge Obama supporter.

Posted by: jabrunt | October 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Snakeheader | October 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Texan2007 really lives in this country, since all he is doing is spreading myth on an internet blog -- myth that has long, long ago been debunked, repeatedly, for anyone paying attention. Texan, you remind me of the person who sends around the emails saying anti-perspirant causes breast cancer. Like if that were true, the zillions of people working on a cure would not have said so. Like the internet is the authority on information.

bsimon, once again, I love you.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | October 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's McCain plan to get the US out of the economic crisis used 4 items that Obama owned the day before. This may be why he is losing too. He is apparently incapable of cognitive thought on his own and we already know the staff he picked was totally lacking in ability.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | October 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse
--------------


The other day Mccain proposed things that were already part of the current bail out plan. A plan I have no doubt he has even read or understands. Mccain is pretty much demented.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Has anyone who writes these anti-Obama screeds ever studied political theory or even political history? ....

"Educate yourselves before you make fools of yourselves again."

***

Of course they haven't. Honestly, all the rightwing is these days is a parrot machine that squawks out a bunch of Republican talking points. Rightwingers have little to no critical thinking skills.

They are the sorts of kids you'd see in kindergarten who kept trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Posted by: castanea | October 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris...you write as though people should understand that Obama is winning based on his money advantage alone...he has a money advantage because he has ran a better campaign, has spoken to people to the point that they support him with $$$ and their time and he has a message that resonates with the American public. Whose fault is it that McCain does not enjoy this same advantage? No one's but his own. He alone has made the final choices when it mattered and it just once again shows the public that he is not capable of running a campaign, how in the world would he be able to run this country. That, and that alone, is why McCain is losing. Not the money advantage which other Republicans, besides myself, want to tout so as to not have to take responsibility for their own actions/inactions.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | October 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's McCain plan to get the US out of the economic crisis used 4 items that Obama owned the day before. This may be why he is losing too. He is apparently incapable of cognitive thought on his own and we already know the staff he picked was totally lacking in ability.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | October 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Tex writes:

Hey,

It is not me that is lying. It is Obama.
You need the beer and hotdog.
I will stick to my Democrat starbucks lattee. Even though I am voting Republican for the first time in my life. STUDY UP!


So McCain is telling you the truth.....like when he said he supported Bush 90% of the time for example ?

You're a lifelong Starbucks sucking Dem, but you're voting for four more years of Bush.

Sure you are LOL.

ps. you got something against a ball game, beer and a hot dog. What are you, un-American ?

Posted by: mathas | October 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I don't know any plumbers who make net $250,000 a year. By the way has anyone said exactly what that tax increases would be? If you netted $250,000 + you can afford to pay a few thousand more in tax if it will provide a little more benefit for society. Benefits by the way you your self will enjoy. I have no kids but schools taxes are the biggest single part on my property tax bill. That is just the way i goes, someone has to pay. Police, Fire department, public education, roads, rivers, parks, every thing we use everyday has to be paid for. There are no free rides. See how many would like it if when they have children they got a bill each year for $30,000 per child to educate them.
-----------

miantch quotes a plumber
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" "

Not necessarily. If the guy buys the business for cash & generates 250 to 280K profit each year, yeah, his taxes will go up. Suck it up, he can afford it. If he buys the business with a loan, the debt service on that loan will push his take-home profits lower. Maybe he'll buy himself better healthcare through the business, getting the write-off, lowering his take home income. Point being, people that are benefitting from living in this country - for instance, earning annual income in excess of a quarter million dollars - should be willing to pay their fair share for enjoying those benefits. If you want to spread that burden, help get more people into that income bracket.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris...you write as though people should understand that Obama is winning based on his money advantage alone...he has a money advantage because he has ran a better campaign, has spoken to people to the point that they support him with $$$ and their time and he has a message that resonates with the American public. Whose fault is it that McCain does not enjoy this same advantage? No one's but his own. He alone has made the final choices when it mattered and it just once again shows the public that he is not capable of running a campaign, how in the world would he be able to run this country. That, and that alone, is why McCain is losing. Not the money advantage which other Republicans, besides myself, want to tout so as to not have to take responsibility for their own actions/inactions.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | October 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

It's hilarious how many McCain-Palin supporters don't like it one bit that Obama is out-fundraising and out-spending them. These same people here never raised a peep when the financial advantage went to the Republicans. No doubt the GOP and their enablers will now seek to claim foul play with regard to the contributions, or seek to suppress the vote using the courts (talking about judicial activism!!!) or intervene in some unorthodox way like when they lost the 2000 election but stole it anyway.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

It's sad that McCain supporters cannot come up with a single reason to support him. Instead, they come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about Senator Obama's heritage, etc... I really think you are giving Obama too much credit if you think he could honestly forge a birth certificate, along with a mother, grandparents, college records and so forth. I am sure there are a lot of people who know and remember Barack Obama throughout their lives. They just never thought it would be important to prove it. No other candidate is being questioned about these things.

I have yet to see any of you question whether John McCain was born in the USA (he wasn't but mom and dad were citizens, therefore he is too), whether he actually went to the Naval Academy, or served on missions that he says he did. I just believe him when he says he did.

Posted by: corridorg4 | October 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama has clearly organized a massive grassroots donation network. No one is holding a gun to people's heads and making them send Obama money, they're doing it of their own free will.

And the long primary campaign it turns out, did not hurt Obama, in fact it helped him. He's got campaign staff and volunteers across the country.

Love him or hate him, you have to give Obama credit, he's running a very good campaign.

Posted by: mathas | October 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Hey,
It is not me that is lying. It is Obama.
You need the beer and hotdog.
I will stick to my Democrat starbucks lattee. Even though I am voting Republican for the first time in my life. STUDY UP!

Posted by: Texan2007 | October 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The United States presidency can not be bought. If it weren't for the tacky smear tactics and lies used against Obama, he would not have to spend so much money on ads. It's not his fault that he has ran a better campaign and raised more money than McCain. If it were McCain spending more, you would have nothing to say about it unless it were in his defense.

I can understand voting for who you choose but the hatred and fear toward Obama coming from some of the McCain supporters is just crazy. However, I'm not surprised at any of the comments coming from McCain supporters especially since the only people welcomed at his rallies are angry lynch mobs and people that think that they are in biblical days when stoning anyone that is different from them was the norm.

These people have the nerve to call Obama a terrorist. Clearly the true terrorists are the people at these rallies. If Obama were to show up, I'm sure he would be stoned to death then hung from a tree.

Posted by: womeninTX4Obama | October 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

It ain't over til its over

Still, I'm pleased with the trend of things on this morning of the final scheduled presidential debate.

Posted by: youngo47 | October 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Indian Pearl,
EDUCATE yourself.
I am (was)a DEMOCRAT NOT a socialist. I would like to keep my money I EARN not equalize it among those that don't!
Socialist believe in "making all equal in income". Where have you heard this? Obama said this and so did Socialist.

And education...listen to the Howard Stearn tape of Obama supporters/voters and their agreeing with "where Obama stands on issues." They were McCain's!

Posted by: Texan2007 | October 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Tex writes:

"IS OBAMA (aka Barry Dunham) or WHOEVER he really is..eligiable to even be running for the Presidency of the US?"

Ask me on January 20th 2009, after Obama is inagurated as the 44th POTUS LOL.

You sound desperate friend. Hang in there, America is a great nation and our way of life can't be beat.

Now, go catch a ball game, have a beer and a hot dog.

Posted by: mathas | October 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Just writes:

"Well, when you break your promise to take public financing and then tap continuously those who you say you are trying to save from economic disaster...just how much money do you think you need from them Obama, to buy this election? This will go down in history as the biggest marketing ploy to get someone elected as I have ever seen. Perhaps the Presidency should go to Axelrod rather than Obama. I guess he can add another African American to his resume he seems so proud of since he boasts of getting so many African Americans elected to office as Mayors or Governor."


Obama said he would examine the possibility of accepting public financing, he never promised that he would use public financing.

And which do you prefer, Obama raising his money independently, or McCain using the taxpayer's money ?

If elections can be bought, then why isn't Mitt Romney the GOP candidate and why wasn't Ross Perot ever elected President ?

I have a news flash for you, retail politics is largely a marketing ploy...where have you been ?

Do you have a problem with black elected officials ? It sounds like it.

Posted by: mathas | October 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

YES, he is BUYING the UNITED STATES PRESIDENCY!
BUT CAN HE BUY SOMETHING HE IS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO? The U S Constitution is very clear!SO where is the SIGNED BY THE JUDGE DEMAND for all CERTIFIED documents relating to Obama's birth? And Columbia while we are at it! There are NO records on his going to Columbia and NOONE that went there remembers him??
But most important:
WHEN IS THE JUDGE ON case number paedce/2:2008 cv04083/281573/18/0 regarding OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS and ELIGIBILITY GOING TO RULE?
This is not a President for the High School Student Council!
We need a ruling immedaitely.It is the U S Constitution that sets the requirements, not Obama or Axelrod or the DNC.

IS OBAMA (aka Barry Dunham) or WHOEVER he really is..eligiable to even be running for the Presidency of the US? It appears, through investigation, he is not. He has about 8 aliases! Was he BORN in hawaii. His birth Father's family says NO.
McCain supporters PLEASE contact your congress representative immediately. We must have this resolved ASAP.

Posted by: Texan2007 | October 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Well, when you break your promise to take public financing and then tap continuously those who you say you are trying to save from economic disaster...just how much money do you think you need from them Obama, to buy this election? This will go down in history as the biggest marketing ploy to get someone elected as I have ever seen. Perhaps the Presidency should go to Axelrod rather than Obama. I guess he can add another African American to his resume he seems so proud of since he boasts of getting so many African Americans elected to office as Mayors or Governor.

Posted by: justmyvoice | October 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

miantch quotes a plumber
""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" "

Not necessarily. If the guy buys the business for cash & generates 250 to 280K profit each year, yeah, his taxes will go up. Suck it up, he can afford it. If he buys the business with a loan, the debt service on that loan will push his take-home profits lower. Maybe he'll buy himself better healthcare through the business, getting the write-off, lowering his take home income. Point being, people that are benefitting from living in this country - for instance, earning annual income in excess of a quarter million dollars - should be willing to pay their fair share for enjoying those benefits. If you want to spread that burden, help get more people into that income bracket.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone who writes these anti-Obama screeds ever studied political theory or even political history? It's "socialism, socialism, communism, communism" and blatherings about Marx, Lenin, and Stalin without having a clue what those figures actually thought.

Educate yourselves before you make fools of yourselves again.

Posted by: IndianaPearl | October 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama 53% - Mccain 39%!
McCain acknowledged Obama won on second debate! But the new debate, he prepared seriously! Watch interview on CNN here: http://tubedirect.net/index.php?q=McCain:-Obama-won-debate (video)

Posted by: varniklili | October 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama spending of our tax dollars is what I'm more cocerned with.

For, if he is elected, Obama intends to use our money to provide "free" medical care to the over 37 million illegals sucking the lifeblood out of our economy, and give them just about everything else at our expense.

Obama also wants to send hundreds of billions to foreign countries out of taxpayer coffers.

SPEND, SPEND, SPEND is Obama's credo.

And we will foot the bill for his extravagences.

Posted by: tncdel | October 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

For those who are Obama lovers and think that he will be better off. Be afraid, very afraid. Below is the insert from not edited comment by Obama inregards of "OBAMATAXCODE 101". Let the lazy get some money and be happy I don’t care about those who actually making money and moving America forward and let the socialists reign.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year," Wurzelbacher had told Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too ... When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
At last! The truth outs!

Posted by: miantch | October 15, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

@Mashenbabum

Everybody is of ethnic origin. Irish, English and so on are as much ethnic labels as Afro-American or Mexican

Posted by: AndrewCarstairs | October 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

What is expected may be an opposite Bradely effect. People who may not admit to others they will vote for a black man in fact will. By the way, many now feel there was no Bradley effect in the first place. That election was in 1982 and the polling was probably badly flawed to start with.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse
**********

That's an interesting idea, popasmoke.
I'm wondering, too, if there could be a "Bradley effect" when it comes to McCain's age as well. Would voters lie and say they'd vote for an elderly candidate when they don't really plan to?
I don't know.

Posted by: dbitt | October 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

On intrade Mccain has now officially dropped into the teens. Obama is in the 80's more then a 60 point lead over Mccain. On all the polls Mccains numbers have flat lined in the low 40's for two weeks now with Obama now over 50. Even when we had the Palin effect a while ago Mccain never broke 48. Voters have stopped moving and those numbers are hardening. If polls are to be believed, this election is over.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Xanadu3 writes: Do Americans want higher taxes, larger government and less personal responsibility?

Haven't we achieved this with W? This bailout is the largest tax increase in history and I believe he also created the Homeland Security wing of the government. And he and the Republicans have been trying to give us less personal responsibility for awhile now through limiting our personal freedoms by playing Big Brother and the constant desire to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As pointed out, your analogy to European leaders is a bit misguided as they tend to focus on economic issues. All support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose as well as separation of church and state. These issues that crank up the right wing nut jobs do not enter political campaigns or discussions in Europe...

Posted by: RickJ | October 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Will the shift in France, Germany, and Canada away from liberalism continue in America or will we elect the most liberal senator with so much liberal baggage against a moderate senator who regularly crosses party lines?"

LOL @ xanadu3. I got news for you - French and German "conservatives" are, relatively speaking, to the left of most Democrats in the US. Stop cutting and pasting talking points that you don't understand, tyvm.

Posted by: ssergio | October 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

A couple of points. The big McCain spending in Maine relates to upstate NH(in the Portland ME TV market)and the fact that Maine (NE is the only other) is a split state(not winner take all). What I don't get is Virginia. If McCain/Palin can't turn it around in VA, they can't win!!

Posted by: jimlatter | October 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Xanadu1,

Unless you're talking about the Austrian FAR-right, most of these European "conservatives" are still to the left of the U.S. politically. Merkel and Sarkozy are multi-lateralists who believe in heavily regulated economies and the social safety net -- in some areas both would be to the left of Bill Clinton -- they would make nice liberal Democrats (also opposed to the death penalty and fans of gun control).

As far as Harper goes, he is like Bush with respect to his ties to big business (and the favors he gives to big business). Give the Canadians another couple years before the catch up to him. He's a kind of political street hustler.

As far as Obama goes -- good news about the on air spending.

Posted by: JPRS | October 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

No such promise was ever made. In fact, it was Mccain who reneged on the details of the deal they had discussed. How Obama runs his campaign is his business. You have been watching this election, you honestly think Mccain is a man of his word who can be trusted? Yea, right, he is a slime ball and Obama was smart to go his own way and take his chances. It may very well have been a failure, but it wasen't. Obama has never wavered or been off message for a year. He is a steady leader it has shown in the way he has run his campaign. The better man is going to win this election and it is Obama.


---------------
Kind of funny when you think about it. Obama promised that if his opponent took public financing he would too. He also stated that he wouldn't take special interest money but now he takes loads of it including illegal foreign money. What other "promise" will Obama throw by the wayside next?

Posted by: RobT1 | October 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

What is the breakdown of all money spent for both candidates from the day they announced their respective candidacies?

It must be an obscene amount of money.

Posted by: InHarmsWay | October 15, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Kind of funny when you think about it. Obama promised that if his opponent took public financing he would too. He also stated that he wouldn't take special interest money but now he takes loads of it including illegal foreign money. What other "promise" will Obama throw by the wayside next?

Posted by: RobT1 | October 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Xanadu3 asked Where is Sen. Obama getting all of this moolah?

Actually, from hockey moms- joe sixpack-regular folks like me who have NEVER contributed a cent to political campaigns before. He's used the internet beautifully--not only to get his message out but also to encourage volunteers and donations. When this is all over he should write a book just on effective use of the internet in a campaign.

Posted by: ScoutieDog | October 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I think you've fallen into the journalistic trap we see often on this topic. It's the "Electoral Map Trap."

The low road says this is all political calculation, with each campaign trying to move into the other's historical ethnic territory. Or defend its own. Yes, politics is war and parties are ethnicities, just as we see and hear reported about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conversely, the high road would say that, whoever wins the election will be the president of all Americans and a 50 state campaign should be what all candidates run. Money or time spent in a neighborhood, town, county or state should be characterized as a true attempt to speak to and listen to as wide as possible an array of Americans who will be -- on January 20 -- the candidate's complete constituency.

It is tiring to us "newsies" to hear repeated stories about subtle nudges in electoral map spending or polling. These are stories, not news. Tell us something we haven't heard, Chris.

Posted by: 1derful | October 15, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

He's really fortunate to have the money to spend, because he entered this race with a huge disadvantage: a large portion of the population wouldn't vote for him simply because of his skin color. So, he's had to spend more to show people that he is indeed a credible candidate.

It was gutsy of him to forego public financing, a very risky decision that could, like McCain's decision to pick Palin, have backfired on him. But it didn't, proving his wisdom.

Folks say he has no "experience" but the way he's run his campaign (in the primary and in the general) has been spectacular. If he runs the country the same way, we're in for a treat. Heck, he might even get people to contribute online to bail out the economy. :)

Posted by: ScoutieDog | October 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

To VMR1,
I believe that America is ready for a president of ethnic origin. However, I pray that Americans will actually vote for the substance of the man in that skin rather than the color of his skin...I believe Obama will win...certainly not my choice as I do not believe HE is ready for the position. But when he does win, I would guess that it would really mean that less than half of all Americans are UGLY, as you put it (and in my heart, I believe that number is much smaller than some imagine). Let's hope the right decision will be made...only time will tell.

Posted by: Mashenbabum | October 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Beware of the "Ugly American" showing his true nature in the privacy of the polling booth. I don't believe America is ready for a
black or even half-black President.

Posted by: VMR1 | October 15, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse
-------------------


Early voter polling already has Obama leading by an average of 23 points. Obama will be the next president, that is just a fact.
What is expected may be an opposite Bradely effect. People who may not admit to others they will vote for a black man in fact will. By the way, many now feel there was no Bradley effect in the first place. That election was in 1982 and the polling was probably badly flawed to start with.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 15, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

I give credit to ALL of the executive candidates as they ended up where they are because of intense focus and desire and much expenditure of energy. I may not fully agree with ANY of them, but there are things in EACH of them that I like, and I don't beleive that any of them could make or break this country. Truthfully, I believe we can collectively make much more of a difference-as an electorate-by changing up our 13%-approval-rating-Congress, than picking a president/VP. There are some senior Congressmen and Senators that just have to go. We'll see how it shakes out.

Posted by: RM23 | October 15, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

How much will money influence the election?

Where is Sen. Obama getting all of this moolah?

Will the shift in France, Germany, and Canada away from liberalism continue in America or will we elect the most liberal senator with so much liberal baggage against a moderate senator who regularly crosses party lines?

Do Americans want higher taxes, larger government and less personal responsibility?

Do Americans really want liberals to control both houses of Congress and the White House?


Will the NY Times and others who lauded Sen. McCain and suggested that they would finally endorse a Republican if only they nominated someone like McCain, now actually support Sen. John McCain?

Posted by: Xanadu3 | October 15, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

With as much money as Obama is dumping into this campaign, he could have made a bigger impact on the economy by paying down some of those bad mortgages or "redistributing that wealth" to those families at the bottom of the economic ladder who so desperately need help. Lets use a little of his money instead of taking what little of mine there is and apply it in a fashion that would actually do some good in this world!

Posted by: Mashenbabum | October 15, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Beware of the "Ugly American" showing his true nature in the privacy of the polling booth. I don't believe America is ready for a
black or even half-black President.

Posted by: VMR1 | October 15, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Most people are hypocrite, particularly politicians which we will see tonight during their last debate (say "last political supper"). When Obama says to older people: "I feel your pain, your loss of 401 (K) investments, your loss of retirement and pension. I promise I will work for you, That is the reason I am running". He looks at the unemployed and say: " I understand your employment problem. Looking at you I see your pain. I want solve your problem. That is the reason I am I running". Then he looked at uninsured and say: " I know how difficult it is without health insurance. My mother had the same problem. That is the reason I am running for presidency". Then he looked at the people who lost the home and say" I know your loss of your home. I will fight for you. That is reason I am running. I want to help you" and so on, and so on. He recalls his grand parents' difficulties. He recalls his childhood. His single parenthood. He recalls his mother's difficulties. But he won't mention his father, even though he keeps his name.
But he won't tell the actual reason: "why he is running for presidency?." His ambition, the life-time economic reward. He says that "without him this country will fail. McCain is not good for our economy, foreign policy, military strength". He will say, without Obama, Economy will go down. He won't tell you that he in running because:
US Presidency is the most-powerful position in this world, most rewarding in anybody's life, most financially successful career during the presidency, after the presidency, until death. It will be a multimillion dollar, 40 year career for a person of age ~45. He says that he wants to help the voters because he can see the pain in their eyes. And he suggests that he will create JOBS ("JOIN OBAMA'S BS") for you, but won't tell how.
One may ask what about McCain. You know the answer. He likes the power but very little long-term rewards. He is 76 after the first term.
I wish these candidates should say: "I like the power of the Presidency. I like the long-term economic rewards. I like to live in White house. I like to help the people, if I can. So I am running. I need your vote. period."

Posted by: madayilnair | October 15, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Oprah.

Posted by: ConcernedCommunity | October 15, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama has run a great campaign so far, generally trusting his gut rather than pundits and conventional wisdom. He seems to be 'in the zone' at the moment in terms of making the right moves. He's caught the tempo of the times and it reflects in his generally positive advertising. Why not advertise in 'red' states? The population has been trending 'blue' for some time as evidenced in the 2006 elections and it seems to be paying off....

Posted by: RickJ | October 15, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company