Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Updating the $ Report Card: Obama Wows With $25M

Remember when we said yesterday that it would take a "gargantuan" fundraising total by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to knock down the "A" grade The Fix gave to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for her first-quarter fundraising performance?

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois
Sen. Obama poses Monday with hip-hop dance students outside the Peterborough Diner in Peterborough, N.H. The Democratic presidential hopeful raised $25 million in the first quarter, only slightly less than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Reuters)

Well, gargantuan is what Obama revealed this morning.

The Illinois senator reported today that his presidential campaign raised $25 million in the first three months of 2007, a stunning figure given that Obama has only been in the Senate for two years and was building his national campaign infrastructure on the fly.

Obama's $25 million total is just $1 million dollars less than the $26 million reported by Clinton. And, it's possible Obama raised more money than any other Democrat during the quarter that can be spent in the primary. Obama collected $23.5 million in primary cash; Clinton has yet to release the split between her primary and general election hauls. Money raised for the general election cannot be spent unless and until the candidate becomes the official nominee of the party.

"This overwhelming response, in only a few short weeks, shows the hunger for a different kind of politics in this country," said Obama Finance Chair Penny Pritzker in a statement released by the campaign.

Here's updated grades for Obama and Clinton:

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.): Grade -- A


A screenshot from barackobama.com.

There had been rumblings for the last month or so that Obama was going to put up a big number. But $25 million? Wow! Obama's campaign generated contributions from 100,000 donors and raised nearly $7 million on the Internet -- both of which bode well for his ability to continue to grow his fundraising base in the second quarter and beyond. Obama's accomplishment is all the more impressive when one considers that four years ago Obama was still a little-known state senator with absolutely no national fundraising base. If Obama wasn't the co-frontrunner for the nomination before his $25 million quarter, he sure as heck is now.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.): Grade -- B

One of Clinton's keys to the nomination all along has been the idea that no candidate will be able to compete with her financially. That perception is now debunked. While it's important to remember that Clinton's presidential campaign had $36 million in receipts in the first quarter ($26 million in new contributions and $10 million in a transfer from her Senate account), putting her far ahead of Obama and everyone else on the Democratic side, the reality is that Obama's number has knocked out one of the main pillars of the Clinton "inevitability" argument. The Fix still expects Clinton to be the overall fundraising leader in this race, but if her advantage over Obama is a few million dollars rather than tens of millions, it is far less meaningful.

(Note: If The Fix hadn't limited himself to no "pluses" or "minuses" in these grades, Clinton would certainly be at a "B+" or "B++.")

(Here are The Fix's grades for the other candidates.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 4, 2007; 11:55 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: California Dreaming
Next: Guest Post: The Online Primary

Comments

angpylqvt wotxbzh lycrgm woukm zyosv rexqty iclb http://www.vryuga.kawnxzl.com

Posted by: yxrdkvsh jefgv | April 20, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

fmyrodl zpmo btpmozie jsxgwrqli fekyc uiglzx gripkbldc

Posted by: sqjhaf iuhoyez | April 20, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

So a woman raises more money than her opponents yet receives a lesser grade? It is indeed a man's world!

Posted by: JoeCHI | April 10, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | April 9, 2007 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, NewGenXer. I clicked the link to Obama's marketing piece and found myself in tears. I was an early "grass roots" donor to Obama, and have continued to support him, but had not seen this piece. Obviously, he has a great marketing organization behind him, and thank God. All of the uninformed folks on this thread should click that link - if you have become so cynical that you are not inspred by this man, just don't vote. Or YES, vote for Guliani. He would be a nightmare candidate for the GOP. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid452323111?bctid=422561644

Posted by: suesher | April 5, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me what experiences Abraham Lincoln brought into office that helped him deal with the Civil War? Can anyone tell me what experiences FDR brought into office that helped him deal with the economics of the time and World War II? These are two of our greatest Presidents. The were successful because of their vision, wisdom and ability to influence Congress and the American people. Shouldn't we be looking for these same qualities in our next President?

We focus so much on a person's experience. They can have all the experience in the world, but if they don't have the ability to work with Congress nothing gets done. Working with Congress to pass legilation takes skill. We want our President to be a leader, a person with a good vision of what a better America will look like. We want our President to be a person with wisdom, who will surround himself with the best minds -not like minded people, but people who will give him sound advice on which to based his decisions (this is what FDR did). We want a President who can work in a nonpartisan manner with Congress to pass substantive legislation.

Look at what Senator Obama has done and you will see that he has wisdom, a good vision and the skills to work in nonpartisan manner. He will be a great President.

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

Chris,

You are eating crow today. Maybe you can use that crow's nest and stick it on your head instead of that awful toupee.

Why are you eating crow? Well....You rave and rave about the HRC fund raising and campaign operatives. Even when giving her a new "B" you have a statement really giving her a B++. No you were right the first time..it should have be a B. That is it. Low hanging fruit with just 50,000 donors compared to Obamas 100,000. Her funds likley 60/40 primary v. general against Obama's 90/10. Her front running status and how she was going to shock and awe people with her numbers. Even with all of this you still talk about Obama's lack of experience and comparing that to HRC. Actually they both lack experience. HRC has been in office 6 years plus a few months and before that she was First Lady of the country and of Arkansas...that is not real experince in my book. Now Dodd and Biden have real experience and it seems their campaign is going nowwhere. I want to make this clear. Hillary really does not have experiences leadership of any kind and any time. You and the Hillary backers can claim that all they want but she does not.

Also...Mr. McAuliffe....maybe that shine will be taken off your apple...you really did a poor job and you know it...Are you going to mention this chapter in your next book or will it be more lies and half truths....I am surprised in that book you did not show Al Gore how the internet works, or Michael Jordon how to take a jump shot or Steve Wynn how to use a video poker machine or Michael Musto (wink wink) how to write a satire column...Terry..I was there with you and I know the scoop...

Chris...I know your days at the Post are limited as you continue to write with your bias and you lack of poltical knowledge....you can always be a hair-dresser...don't worry..

Posted by: L. R. Frogg | April 5, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

It's great to see the internet making a difference, no matter how small. Pretty impressive the impact that 50000 people donating a couple hundred dollars can have. Another $200 is on the way this quarter from me!

As for Hillary, well things are not going well though she retains some structural advantages. She raised less primary money than Obama from far fewer people. She's only up a couple of points in likely voter polls, and the combined bloc of Obama and Edwards voters (i.e labor and netroots) means that whoever's in second come super tuesday is ready to spring ahead of her. Finally, some, but not all, matchup polls show her losing races Obama or Edwards would win, which should erode her support during the year.

This race is really about who has the strongest, clearest vision of what America is going to be, both as a world leader and for its people at home. I think Obama has the nuanced, non-polarizing approach that is needed to manage the next 8 years of our democracy. But this quarter is where the rubber hits the road, where policy positions firm up and where we see whose poll numbers and fundraising have legs.

Posted by: Nissl | April 5, 2007 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Can anybody 'splain to me why being the first lady of Arkansas and the nation counts as experience? As a graduate of nearby Northwestern, I can attest that the U of Chicago hires no dummies. Too many of us, who have the ability or means to fight city hall shirk from the challege. Obama didn't.
In our polarized politcal environment, I cannot see any candidate uniting the American people or repairing our reputation. In a long process, I can see Obama making it better for the next guy or gal...Jackie

Posted by: Katy, Tex | April 5, 2007 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: NewGenXer | April 5, 2007 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is the best choice in the Democratic field. He's not tarnished by support for the war in Iraq, he's articulate in a way that is missing from public discourse in this country, and he's intellectually curious in a way that starkly contrasts from what we've seen the last six years. He's smart enough to surround himself with smart people who disagree with him.
And if you don't think he's presidential, go to one of his events. Listen to the man, and watch the body language from the crowd. This guy reels you in. If you don't like his politics, fine. But all you have to do to dispell the notion that "we don't know what he stands for" is go to his website and look at his platform. Sen. Obama is highly electable, and will beat any of the declared candidates on the GOP side hands down.
Fred Thompson may be the only one that could hurt him.
BTW, please oh please let Rudy be nominated, and have the social conservatives send out a third party candidate. The Democrats could run Barney Frank and a trained seal on their ticket and win in that situation.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 5, 2007 12:10 AM | Report abuse

JPerez, I live in Illinois and during the Senate race Obama had shakey black support. then came voting day and he got over 80% of the black vote.
Some of what the so called experts laugh and say rookie mistakes really are not. Obama does things his own way. The man is really smart and he figures out new and different ways of doing things. So the pundits laugh while Obama attracts thousands to his rallies and his core support is growing and solid.
Do not believe everything people try to pass off as CW.
I heard tonight that Obama surpassed Clinton. He has 23.5 and she has 20 in primary money (not counting the senate leftovers). I heard that camp clinton is madly recounting checks.
My opinion on Obama surpassing Clinton?
YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: vwcat | April 4, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Bush has the most experienced people with him, Cheney among them...and look where it got us. Obama has way more experience and education then Bush...so don't play the "experience" game. Focus more on that people are suffering from "Clinton Fatigue!" She is not inevitable.

Obama is inspiring, fresh, and wants to unify, not polarize this country. His many supporters have spoken for him in cold hard cash! So now it is time for you listen to us too.

Posted by: NewGenXer | April 4, 2007 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I initially thought Obama had an impossible sell when Hillary had more black support. I thought if he was the black candidate, whites would abandon him. If he was a candidate who happens to be black, black voters might think him an "Uncle Tom." The fact that the black support shifted his way and that Rev. Jesse Jackson endorsed him seems to have proven me wrong. I am impressed by Obama's funds, though i still think rookie mistakes may ultamitely trip him up. But I was still more sure of it before i seen 25 Million. Maybe he's '08's Howard Dean, I just hope Hillary doesnt benefit. I like Obama in many ways I'm just a bit afraid of his lack of experience. In these times I think experience is absolutely necessary. That's why Bush f***ed it up, due to his lack of experience.

Posted by: J Perez | April 4, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, But Hiliary 'Goose is cooked'. Obama will be our next President of these United States.

I can say this much, if Hiliary wins in the primary, I will not vote for her in the General Election. She is not capable of leading this country. It scares me to think that she might become president.

Posted by: Irene | April 4, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

JD, answer me this, why is it that the states with the highest out-of-wedlock birth rates, highest teen pregnancy rates, highest STD rates, etc., are all red states?

Teen Pregnancy Rates (of the top 10, only CA is a blue state; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf):
1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Mississippi
4. New Mexico
5. Texas
6. Florida
7. California
8. Georgia
9. North Carolina
10. Arkansas

STD Rates (fun numbers here, something else for Mississippi to be proud of): http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary no longer the frontrunner? I think her "cant touch this" image that she was invincible has been shattered. In'08 i wouldnt look too much into polls. This shows Obama has equalled to her in her strongpoint: money. Is Obama the new frontrunner or are they both frontrunners at this point? Is this the beginning of the end for Hillary Clinton? Looks like the top tier trio in each party has a new frontrunner, a new guy to be ripped apart.

Posted by: J Perez | April 4, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

The news Cilizza won't tell you:

'Dem Presidential candidates outraise GOP counterparts by over $25 million.'

Posted by: The Big News | April 4, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

William,
You are just missing it.
A Head-to-head polls on the esteemable Rasmussen Reports on polls(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/politics.htm)Reveals that on average, Obama actually does better than Hillary or Edwards against Giuliani. The gap between Obama and Giuliani has also been closing noticeably, and now stands at only 1% below Rudy(a statistical tie).

Gulliani and Mcain beat Hillary by over 7-8%.Actually Hillary has never beat any Republican candidates including Mcain.At one point she tied with Thompson(the new Repub guy)!!!

What does that tell you?Hillary leads on the Dems side becoz of Bills influence and if the Dems are duped by the rating on the Dems side, they are cooked come 2008!!!


Posted by: Check Point | April 4, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse


Far too bleak for snark. From the Times of London ...

A newborn baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed when a suicide bomber detonated a lorry laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk yesterday.

The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

But who could be better in a diplomatic post than a character assassin?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress where Democrats had derailed Fox's nomination.

Democrats had denounced Fox for his 2004 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's losing the election.

Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation, Bush withdrew the nomination last month. On Wednesday, with Congress out of town for a spring break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.

This means Fox can remain ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress, effectively through the end of the Bush presidency.'

Charming, and typical. Mr. Imperial President at work. The smirking never stops.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Now are you people done saying he's biased toward Hillary? The only analyst who's even AS non-biased as Chris Cillizza is Chuck Todd. Past these two guys, you will not find any better analysts, except maybe in a few years after I finish college.

Posted by: J Perez | April 4, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Even though Barack doesn't seem "seasoned" enough to lead the country, I think the important thing is that his heart is in the right place. His opposing the Iraq war from the beginning attests to the type of leader he will be and his campaign fundraising reflects the growing sentiment of desiring humanitarianism in government.

According to the Borgen Project, we have spent $340 billion on the war to end terror and nothing has come of it. We need to urge our leaders to support issues that will make an impact on the sources of terror. I hope Barack gives our current foreign policy a makeover by supporting the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty, which is a real way to fight terror.

Posted by: elle c | April 4, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

'I can't believe that anybody would justify throwing stuff at anybody, whether they identify with his/her politics or not.

Would you also similarly justify someone trying to assassinate someone you don't like, like Ann Coulter?'

umm, is throwing paper cups the same as assassination?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--Hey, you still have not answered any of my points from the past few days. Confronted with facts -> run and so on.

Anyway, until you do, you have lost your right to complain about no-one answering you AND the right to call 'libs' names.

Be a man, admit you cannot counter the facts.

Posted by: roo | April 4, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: NewGenXer | April 4, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

JD: It is me and I don't think McCain has any credibility left. From my observation of him these past weeks, leaves me with the impression of a very troubled person, and the information I have tends to prove it is correct. I do hope he will drop out of the race, for it will only hurt his family and friends if this information is made public, and it is 99 and 44% pure as in the Ivory soap commercial.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- I think you're wrong about the GOP's ability to win in a three-way race, but I understand your argument. Time will, of course, let us know whose right. Personally, I doubt many conservative or moderate Democrats will end up voting for Rudy largely for one reason; Iraq. Obviously you and I will have to agree to disagree on how that issue will cut politically.

MikeB -- If you really care about the working class and middle class, Rudy's not a good choice. The ONLY things he's "moderate" about are social issues. His economic positions are to the RIGHT of Bush and would favor the wealthy even more than what we have now. Not sure why you'd want to support that. To each his own though.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

The Fix sure likes 'em dollars.

Posted by: jojo | April 4, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

lyle (if it's really you this time, lol), do you think McCain is now running for vice?

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Some very good posts today with the usual exceptions that some have pointed out. Rudy and Mitt appears to be gaining strength at the expense of McCain, and I think the trip to Iraq has put the final nails in his coffin. Every time I have seen him on TV today tends to confirm my thoughts that he is toast. The body language seems to suggest he knows he is beaten, as I have observed these past weeks.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

newgenx - I am tempted to say the same thing about McCain but the threat of hillary will lead me to pull any lever that says R. this is not my usual approach having voted Libertarian most elections. but this time the consequences are grave indeed. Obama is certainly too liberal for my taste but not nearly so frightening as hildebeast. I hope he gets a shot. but that would leave the far right little choice in a rudy v obama scenario. I suspect that the reason the Rs lost the last election was not the far right, it was the middle who care more about finance than social issues. rudy can repair this. the exit polls and the resulting statistics will be fascinating. One can only hope the Rs move toward the Libertarians as time flys. We can get the Feds out of our bedrooms, in accordance with Lib wishes and out of our wallets, in accordance with Cons desires. A perfect world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Michael, what you call 'turning back the clock on social progress', some people call the degradation of society's mores and values.

It all depends on your point of view. I hope you wouldn't start celebrating the gradual, but steady, increase in out-of-wedlock births, the oversexualization of women (especially kids), the institutional racism implicit in affirmative action, the willingness of urban teens to kill because they feel they've been disrespected, etc.

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

to 'bye' and anon/coward:

I can't believe that anybody would justify throwing stuff at anybody, whether they identify with his/her politics or not.

Would you also similarly justify someone trying to assassinate someone you don't like, like Ann Coulter?

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

THE BOTTOMLINE:

Obama has inspired MORE people to get involved in the political process. He is fresh and bring positive change. Most of all he is genuine and not a scripted politician like Hillary. No matter what she does, she does not come of as genuine and she the Clintons come with negative polarizing baggage.

If Obama is nominated he will bring alot more diverse votes (democratic, republican and independent) and he has a lot more enthusiam behind him and with these efforts and GOD WILLING he will be our next President.

Like someone else said, if Clinton is nominated...I am staying home. She simply does not have it to be electable.

Posted by: NewGenXer | April 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I like that no one calls Rudy on the "conservative judges" issue. CNN came close today, but still no one makes the point that when Rudy says "conservative judge," he means something very different than when Bush says the same thing. Remeber, he's a prosecuter and a social liberal. A conservative judge is someone who supports the death penalty and will consistantly rule with prosecuters on tougher sentences and more latitude for authorities, not someone who's going to overturn Roe, which he's said time and time again he supports. Face it Zouk, there's a reason the Christian Reich is so pissed at the Republican Party; the last six years was the best opportunity they will ever get to turn back the clock on social progress, and nothing significant came of it. It's over now, and there's no way either Bush will ram through another conservative should he get another vacancy, and none of the leading contenders on the right will, either, should they get elected. They wouldn't even make it out of committee (which is where Thomas' nomination should have died, too). It's pretty darn close to being a done deal.

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I went looking for an article or quotes, but could not find them. I had actually listened to recent speaches by Hagel and Guilianni, recently, where they expressed alarm at the technology transfers resulting from H1B visas and outsourcing and called for curbs. Edwards position in this regard is well know. Richardson used to call himself a Free Trader as recently as 2004 in a CNN interview, but is now acknowledging that it is a mistake and has been a drain on jobs and our security. Clinton, when asked the same question, as recently as two months back, stated that she wanted to INCREASE H1B visas and other guest worker visas.

And, as for the GOP nominating Guillinni, I sure hope so. One, it would be a slap in the face for the pseudo-christian fanatics like Dobson and Robertson and similar swine and they could run off to their Arian Nation compounds and pout AND it would provide genuine liberals with a reasonable choice if the Democratic Party is stupid enough to nominate Clinton or Obama.

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Colin, there is that danger. But coming from a Dem or a Lib isn't convincing and I don't hear a lot of Rs complaining just yet. If offered the distinct choice between hillary and candidate X who may not agree 100% with me, it is not clear that candidate x will not sweep up the votes. After all, the outcome for those voters you are so concerned with it most certainly are worse under prez hil. It is also still unclear as to the effect of leaving the right/evangelical wing of the party for the moderate/conservative Dem votes available. I suspect many Dem voters will not vote for hill and will pull the lever for Rudy. this may turn out to be a net gain. I think that aspect of the party may be loud (like the crazy leftists of the Dems) but moreover mostly ineffectual. In the Dem case, they couldn't beat Lieberman, despite a very concentrated effort.

That does not answer the question of whether he can actually obtain the nomination. closer to that time, the "electability" concern will emerge and the Howard Deans will be abandoned for the supposedly electable john Kerry's.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- the problem with your argument is that Rudy has said that he agrees with Roe v. Wade. Which means he doesn't think the states should decide the issue.

Do you REALLY think the modern republican party is going to nominate a guy who not only thinks Roe was rightly decided but who wants to use government funds to pay for abortions? Or, even if he does get the nomination, you don't think that's going to yield a STRONG third party christian right candidate? Of course it will.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Predicting that rudy will wilt under pressure doesn't exactly subscribe to his personality.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I am not the same idiot as that other idiot. I am my own special breed of idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

What rudy really said - "Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," ...

On the other hand, if it weren't a constitutional right...

this would certainly force the issue. all you fence sitters in congress beware, you may actually have to vote. But this strategy opens ups a brilliant avenue - devolve to the states as it should have been allowed to do before the Libs sent it to the SCOTUS for an answer.

this is how they used to get their way, avoid the ballot box and the debate when you have no facts and FEEL strongly. but the settlement of this issue was most unsatisfying and still rages. Tactical victory for the Dems but the war is not over.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

William you need to spend more time digesting the content of Senator Obama's books and speeches and less time chomping at the bit.

Get your facts straight.

First, Senator Obama did not grow up in Indonesia - he spent three years there from the age of 6-9. In Indonesia, he went to a public school and his lessons were supplemented from a U.S. correspondence course, not a madras.
When he returned to his birhplace, Honolulu, Hawaii which at that time was and still is the 50th state of America he attended and graduated from Punahou School a prestigious prep school founded by missionary families, who came to Hawaii from the East Coast of the United States.

Second, he learned from his mother to disdain the blend of ignorance and arrogance that characterizes Americans abroad. It's unfortunate you did not have parents who could teach you this valuable lesson. It's because of people like you, Americans are viewed as arrogant and ignorant.

Third, I'm sure you're proud of the name your parents gave you when you were born. You had no choice. Same with the Senator.
A person can't help the name given to them or the family into which they were born.

So bring on the debate between Rudy and Barack. Rudy will wilt under the pressure while Senator Obama will clearly articulate his vision for America.

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

Yup, he said it. He even said abortion is a constitutional right... I can hear the tiny heads exploding...


'TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.'

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It's not all the same person, 'king'. Lots of people make fun of you. You're such an easy target.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

drindl: exactly. thank you.

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The wisdom of noname coward:
"Karl Rove is a monster and deserves to have the rest of his life made a living hell.
LOL the King of Fools is back.

where you been all day, hanging out on the unemployment line?
Or did mom throw you out of the basement and take away your cheetos?

'facts and FOX; now there's a killer oxymoron!

we all have to sink to his level and hurl kindergarten insults at each other.

No thank you. What is this guy's problem anyway?"

It would seem that the problem you state is your own.


Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

'With respect to Rudy, I think you're wrong. He's bought and paid for by corporate america, so the idea of him standing up to the corporations who want cheap labor seems unlikely to me.'

Absolutely. Do a little research on Rudy's companies and who their clients are -- the biggest transnationals in existence. His trade policies will be exactly teh same as bushie's -- which is sell the country to the highest bidder and give tax incentives for outsourcing.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The 'king' is here -- now we all have to sink to his level and hurl kindergarten insults at each other.

No thank you. What is this guy's problem anyway?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- do you have a link to Richardson or Rudy making statement supporting "fair trade" instead of "free trade?" I would be interested to see whatever you're rading.

With respect to Rudy, I think you're wrong. He's bought and paid for by corporate america, so the idea of him standing up to the corporations who want cheap labor seems unlikely to me.

For Richardson, who I like in many ways, I would view any statements he makes supporting restrictions on trade as something of a pander. He was a HUGE proponent till he starting running for president, which seems a little too fortuitous to me.

Edwards, I'll grant you, seems to have genuinely become a convert on these issues.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

you earned it, king. you definitely earned it.

thanks for coming over here and giving everyone an easy target to make fun of. you're a hoot.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Rove is a monster deserving of the torture "

but killers should be given a parade

Lib reasoning.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

'pesky facts and that darned Fox news.'

'facts and FOX; now there's a killer oxymoron!

Posted by: king of maroons | April 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

king of morons - is that an inherited title or earned. either way it fits like a glove.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Facts? You mean like the Italian Letter? Oh, wait, that was a lie and now over 3,000 U.S. soldiers are dead. Thank you neo cons!

Posted by: king of morons | April 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

An afterthought about Obama's place in the race, and Sen. Clinton's, as seen from here:

As I said, Sen. Obama drew very well in Austin in February.

Then Gov. Richardson came through to accept an award from the Republican Texas Legislature, make a short speech at the Capitol, and collect $200k at lunch at Scholz's Bier Garten.

Sen. Clinton came through and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in a private meeting. My Democratic activist friends all took her refusal to make a public appearance in heavily Democratic Austin, TX as sign of structural weakness in her campaign. Perhaps it was a mere scheduling blip; I am only reporting how it was perceived.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 4, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Or did mom throw you out of the basement and take away your cheetos?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Since your ideas and methods are so barren of thought, I conclude that throwing garbage is appropriate for Lib protestors, or any Lib. that is what you do all day on this site, isn't it?

No sense confronting a proper debate on issues, which Libs always seem to lose. If only it wasn't for those pesky facts and that darned Fox news. how dare they interfere with Lib FEELINGS about things and report the truth.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

'Except for one thing golgi - dems lie to get into office.' LOL the King of Fools is back.

where you been all day, hanging out on the unemployment line?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I really didn't mean to start that post with "in fairness" along the lines of koz, etc.

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Except for one thing golgi - Dems lie to get into office"

hmm, how about "I'm a uniter, not a divider," "I'm a compassionate conservative," "we will restore honor and decency to the White house" "I have no litmus test on abortion," a golden oldie "read my lips..." et cetera ad nauseum

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

In fairness, anonymous (lord I hate typing anonymous), I am not pontificating about throwing debris at Rove's car, and certainly not condemning it. If I were there, I would likely not object and would more likely be screaming myself. I could not agree more that Rove is a monster deserving of the torture this adminsitration sanctions. I just hate the group label of a dozen or so protestors as a shortcut for ALL liberals.

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"In fairness, if you absolutely can't originate a single thought (this happens to Dems a lot, especially around election time) what choice do you have."

In fairness, if you can't use punctuation, does that mean you're an idiot, or just a conservative?

Posted by: king of morons | April 4, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

bye rudy - Excuse me, after the damage he has done to people and to this country, how do YOU sit back and pontificate about protestors throwing garbage at Karl Rove's car? Karl Rove is a monster and deserves to have the rest of his life made a living hell.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I see the brain dead plaigerist is back. The extent of his contribution is to cut and paste and then change a few words. this timeless strategy has been utilized by idiots (like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy) for decades. The most amusing aspect is that they consider it clever and insighful. I guess - if you're 14. Or a Lib/Dem.

In fairness, if you absolutely can't originate a single thought (this happens to Dems a lot, especially around election time) what choice do you have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL writes
"I would consider Obama to be way ahead of where GWB was in 1999, that still doesn't make him ready. Isn't GWB an object lesson in why we should not elect people with such spotty resumes as president?"

My jury of 1 is still out on Sen Obama's qualifications for the big chair. I agree that he's ahead of GWB in 1999. When I read some of his statements - for instance going back to his anti-war speech in 2002 - I find him compelling. Thus far, he's a far more compelling candidate than Senators Clinton or Edwards, or any of the GOP front-runners. I'm not 'there' yet for Obama, but of the folks that've collected more than $10 million in contributions, he's the only one I haven't eliminated...

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Colin - I know about Edwards and Richardon's support for Free Trade agreements in the past. In the past, everyone believed that free trade was going to make us more competitive and bring more jobs here. Now, it has become all too apparent that "free trade" is rather like "Hippy Love Share" - 'I love, you share'. Every other nation on the face of the earth seems to realize that keeping jobs for their workers is in their nations interest, so they have all passed laws to curb outsourcing any jobs and technologies that result in the net export of high wage jobs. Same with gueest workers. You don't see a German or British or Danish company bringing in any sort of guest worker engineer if there is an employed native engineer who wants that job. We, on the other hand, permitted Boeing to outsource all ofm their technology...now, China has annouced they are establishing their own airplane manufacturing plant producing airplains that look suspiciously like the ones Beoing made there....and Boeing is now crying for "protection". A little late, I'd say. Same for Apple Macs, Dell computers, IBM, GM and Ford cars and trucks, our IC wafer manufacturing facilities. Did you know that Intel just spent 3.5 billion dollars setting up an IC fabrication plant in China using technology so new, it doesn't even exist in the U.S.? Did you know that we IMPORT the chips for our missiles, *all* of our defense technologies, from China becasue the jobs, technology, and facilities have been moved offshore?

Off hand, I'd say we're in deep trouble unless this is turned around immediately. Mr. Edwards has said the same thing...publically. So has Mrt. Hagel and Mr Richardson and Mr. Guilliani. But, Hillary and Obama appear to be more concerned about lining their pockets. I suppose they have some sort of pre-invite to move to Dubai when everything goes to h*ll here. But, even though they are aware of the problem, they have noticably not said ONE WORD about it. Ak them. Watch them dodge and weave. They're thiefs, no better than the corporate cockroaches that support them.

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Grouping all liberals with those who would throw debris at Rove's car is like grouping all conservatives with the idiots who speak out against gays at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Give me a break.

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Except for one thing golgi - Dems lie to get into office. Look at what dirty harry reid said right before the election and now. Look what was said about earmarks. Look what was said about minority participation. Look what was said about defunding troops. Look what was said about rooting out corruption. Look what was passed into law in 100 hours - nothing. Look at the promises about frugality and tax increases.


The impulse is decent but the result from power hungry libs turns out rotten.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I for one don;t really care about Obama's experience level. I find him inspiring and that's enough for me. If HRC winds up being the nominee, I plan to stay home on election day.

Posted by: Experience-shmerience | April 4, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

This forum, described below by techpresident, is such a good idea. One of those "I can't believe everyone doesn't already do this" things. If you like political blogging...

Techpresident is being a bit catty to refer to it as a "development" tool. It's really a tool to provide a forum for discussion. A way to get voters' thoughts to the candidate.

Isolation from real voters is a huge problem for politicians. That's the classic bubble problem. This is the anti-bubble.

"...the Obama campaign is apparently releasing an open source policy development tool [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/] (look to the right of the page). It seems as though in the coming months the Obama campaign tool will allow for users to propose ideas and debate and refine each other's ideas, and the campaign will incorporate the best into the campaign's policy."

Posted by: Golgi | April 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Kos, is that you? rosie?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

'Cons are like some sort of out-of-control adolescent id run amok. Raised by wolves. who else would think that serial adultery and dumping your wife and kids is worthy of high-fives man? I am tempted to make some sort of mafia joke but don't want to denigrate the mafia. I was just like them, so I know of what I speak - when I was 14.'

you know of what you speak when you were 14? how brilliant.

Posted by: king of kook | April 4, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

'The Bush administration's House of Straw seems to be blowing apart, buffeted by alternating gusts of scandal and incompetence.

The tornado of disastrous headlines -- a Pentagon that can't take proper care of its wounded, a Justice Department that can't be trusted to follow the law or tell the truth to Congress, a top White House aide who lied to a grand jury-- has been so overpowering that the day-to-day outrages of life in the Bush administration tend get overlooked.

So it's worth pausing to pay attention to some recent events that similarly underscore the failings of this administration and illuminate one of their root causes: a contemptuous attitude toward government itself. These episodes illustrate the administration's fox-guarding-the-henhouse personnel plan, the disdain of its appointees for the laws they are sworn to enforce and their spoils-of-war attitude toward the government they are entrusted with overseeing:

Posted by: ruth marcus today -- great | April 4, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

JD - Libs are like some sort of out-of-control adolescent id run amok. Raised by wolves. who else would think that sneaking an intern under your desk is worthy of high-fives man? I am tempted to make some sort of trailer park joke but don't want to denigrate trailer parks. I was just like them, so I know of what I speak - when I was 14.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 4, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: My goodness, now we have some folks acting like they are you. These folks are complimenting us and don't even realize what they are doing. This has been a great day for Hillary and the few supporters she has on this forum.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I am in fact the real person upon whom the "Reservoir Dogs" character "Mr. Pink" was based. Hence, "like a virgin."

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

the best is that the headline is: giuliani backs public cash for abortions. love it. here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

When Sen. Obama was in Austin on a rainy seventy degree Friday afternoon in February, he drew 20,000 to an outdor rally and raised perhaps $500,000. He has magnetism, and a U. of Chicago Law professor will be able to handle himself in an informed debate. I think he must be counted as a truly credible candidate, here in the early going.

I appreciated the comment from his constituent in Chicago. It helped to form a picture for me. Thank you, Mr. Rafik.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 4, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

drindl, i just saw it on CNN's site. it's the interview to air on the situation room tonight, where he responds to footage from a 1989 interview where he says the same thing. tonight's interview confirms he still believes in those statements made in 1989. i had to come over here and post the news. baffling to me that rudy would be that foolish this early on.

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

No, I was right the first time about the impersonator of Williamas a Clinton nut job - lylepink .

--you're losing your mind.

'Giuliani just lost the Republican nomination by confirming in a CNN interview to air tonight that he supports public funding for poor women to get abortions if that is their choice. That is the kind of help no Democratic candidate fundraising can buy!'

omigod. precious. where did you read that? I bet you money it never gets aired. Suicide. the man has a tin ear and a club foot. But he already proved that by saying his wife could be a member of his Cabinet. Shades of Clinton. Hey you righties, he's more like Clinton than Clinton in some ways. Lotsa ways. You're going to hate him before this is over.

Cognitive dissonance alert!

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The Obama number is impressive. I am kind of like the poster who thinks he doesn't have enough experience to be POTUS. This certainly does matter. It matters so that you can sift through all the voices and consituencies that are trying to influence you within the executive branch, the military, the party etc. Bush is not a good retort to this. Obviously coming from a state with a weak governership is not the paradigm we should be aspiring to experience wise. He frankly probably didn't have enough and the results show. So debating the credentials is valid for Obama. He doesn't have many. You would love to see the spirit and energy of his candidacy in someone that did - but maybe that is sort of an oxymoron.

Posted by: TG | April 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

here is a guy who built his support very recently while Hillary had hers for years.
Plus Hillary had Bill helping her raise money and strong arming donors.
This is interesting in that how much would Hillary have raised if Bill was not around to help her...

Posted by: vwcat | April 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

bsimon asked: "More or less readiness than GWB had in 1999? Or is that an irrelevant comparison?"

I would consider Obama to be way ahead of where GWB was in 1999, that still doesn't make him ready. Isn't GWB an object lesson in why we should not elect people with such spotty resumes as president?

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 4, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

michael notes
"I hardly think Dubya is the gold standard for fitness to be president..."

Exactly. How can Obama be disparaged as 'unready', particularly by anyone who supports the current officeholder?

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani just lost the Republican nomination by confirming in a CNN interview to air tonight that he supports public funding for poor women to get abortions if that is their choice. That is the kind of help no Democratic candidate fundraising can buy!

Posted by: bye rudy | April 4, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Rudy & Romney now have the same problem. They both have no place to go but down!

Posted by: mountain moron | April 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary & Obama now have the same problem. They both have no place to go but down!

Posted by: mountain man | April 4, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- take a look at how Edwards VOTED when he was in the Senate and at Richardson's unvarnished support of free trade agreements before you decide they're better than Obama. Richardson was one of the point-persons for NAFTA when he was in the House and Edwards supported free trade strongly before he opposed it. Obama, in contrast, has actually voted against every free trade agreement that's come in front of him. I would think that would actually matter to you.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

DTM - No, I was right the first time about the impersonator of William. It was a Clinton nut job - lylepink .

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris noted
(Note: If The Fix hadn't limited himself to no "pluses" or "minuses" in these grades, Clinton would certainly be at a "B+" or "B++.")

It's like saying, don't worry sweetie, I still love you! A "B++", what's that?? More like "BS"+. Come on, stop with the kissy kissy treatment of Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"funny how all when HRC raises $26 million the money doesn't matter, and now, once Obama raises $25, the election is over. (yeah obama may have raised more for the primaries - but HRC has her carry over)"

It's by no means over, but when your big strength is your ability to raise money to overwhelm your competitor and you really don't do that, you fail. Clinton is the ultimate insider, the ultimate known quantity, so this was her advantage. It's gone, so Obama's image of change, youth, etc., push him forward (not to mention many of Clinton's big money donors have by now probably maxed out, while Obama has a pool of small donors who can continue to give, I just gave myself now that he's proven he can hold his own).

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

From today's Achenblog:
"As expected, Romney did very very well with the Mormons, the Far Right, the Even Farther Right, the Wafflers, the Flip-Floppers and persons with weirdly prominent foreheads. Giuliani cleaned up among urban Northeasterners, Alpha Divorcees, and autocrats. McCain did well among World War II veterans and members of McCain's Senate staff."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 4, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

funny how all when HRC raises $26 million the money doesn't matter, and now, once Obama raises $25, the election is over. (yeah obama may have raised more for the primaries - but HRC has her carry over)

I don't really see Obama's number as that surprising, considering the media attention he's gotten. I probably would have guessed 21-22, but still. The question will be now that he is in the race, how will he stand up to the scrutiny that he will recieve, and how does he keep himself on the frontpages now that his canidacy itself isn't a story.

The problem with lots of small internet donations is that these donations are fickle. If he can't keep himself on the front page, they go away.

Posted by: anon | April 4, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Check out The Smirk -- it's creepy, like a death rictus...

'Presidential Likes: Pork, Smirking. Dislikes: Troops. (37 comments )

President Bush spent much of Tuesday morning misleading the American people about the congressional appropriations bills (now in conference). And when I say "misleading," I mean "wickedly awesome amounts of lying." It's also worth noting that his smirk almost hit 90-degree-vertical status. The screen capture on the right shows the president grinning immediately after saying the words, "That's precisely why I sent more troops into Baghdad [where they might be killed or mutilated]." Respectful and appropriate as always, Mr. President.

The part he wasn't lying about was his threat to veto the congressional appropriations bill for the troops. In fact, he said the word "veto" eight times. To translate for Hannity and Malkin, that means President Bush is going to veto -- [stupid guy voice] he gonna not for to sign it [end stupid guy voice] -- an emergency spending bill for the Iraq occupation and the American forces there.

Why is that?

First, he said that the language about withdrawing our forces by 2008 is bad, even though 60-percent of Americans support withdrawing from Iraq by that time. 60 percent. That's more than twice the number of Americans who inexplicably continue to support his presidency.

He also noted that Congress is undercutting the opinion of the commanders on the ground. "[The American people] don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war," the president said, suddenly caring about what the American people think (60 percent want us out!). But I see what he means about politicians ignoring the generals on the ground. It's sort of like when Generals Eric Shinseki and John Abizaid recommended that we have several hundred thousand soldiers on the ground for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq and the Democrats clearly ignored the generals and didn't -- wait, oh yeah. Doy. It was President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who ignored their commanders.

Second, the president insinuated that Congress was taking a remarkably long time to deliver a bill to his desk. 57 days, he said. Think Progress, meanwhile, informed us Tuesday that previous Republican "emergency" bills took as long as 86 and 119 days to reach his desk.

Then there's the pork. President Bush suddenly hates earmarks, which is weird since he signed a steaming Hastert-sized pile of spending bills loaded with pork from the formerly Republican controlled Congress. And I'm not talking about the omnibus or transportation bills. Those are givens. Let's have a look at the pork in some of the Republican defense and homeland security appropriation bills that President Bush signed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/presidential-likes-pork_b_44962.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"More or less readiness than GWB had in 1999? Or is that an irrelevant comparison?"

I hardly think Dubya is the gold standard for fitness to be president...

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

if i were a rudy fan, I wouldn't find this reassurig...

"I want to assure you we will be back in Iowa. We're going to be running in Iowa," Giuliani told those who attended a rally in Des Moines. "Were going to be here. Were going to be listening to you. We're going to tell you what we think and we're going to listen to what you think. And then we're going to win the caucuses, surprise everybody, and then with your help we're going to carry Iowa and win the election."

The couple hundred people listening in the high school gymnasium gave him a polite but hardly rip-roaring reception. A partition divided the gym to make it appear better attended than it was.

Dozens of those who showed up didn't look old enough to vote. Handmade signs hung from a blue curtain behind the podium. Just before the candidate took the stage, a few in the audience tried to start a "Rudy, Rudy, Rudy" chant. It was a halfhearted effort that died quickly.'

he'll be 'listening' is he hillary or what?

Posted by: driindl | April 4, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

What will Hillary Clinton do with all that money (beyond buying off people like Vilsack and other local pols)? I cannot imagine a Hillary Clinton commercial that would make someone want to vote for her. What could she say? People wouldn't even listen to it.

Posted by: Karen | April 4, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

HillDog is going down ... Go Obama Go!

Posted by: sjxylib | April 4, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

'Looks like Henry Waxman isn't the only one who finds the GWB43 server issue peculiar. Emptywheel:

Now, as to the scope, just the campaign strategy sessions alone may well be a violation of the Hatch Act-which requires the person behind those sessions to be fired. (Then of course, knowingly leaking classified information to journalists usuallly requires the person to lose their security clearance, which, in Turdblossom's case, would get him fired too, but never mind that.)

But Waxman is looking for any GWB43 emails sent or received by Turdblossom relating to "the use of federal agencies or resourcs to help Republican candidates." Last I checked, DOJ counted as a federal agency. As did GSA. As did the DHS (remember the plane used to chase down Democrats in TX?). So this may well be a large universe of emails.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Jim D in FL says
"I have serious doubts about Obama's readiness to be president."

More or less readiness than GWB had in 1999? Or is that an irrelevant comparison?

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is that Obama's fundraising efforts are impressive. I knew that Romney and Obama would do well, but not as well as they did! They definately deserve the A ratings.

Chris, you have did alot of reports on how much money candidates have raised. A question that I am wondering about is how much have the candidates spent on building an organization? I know Romney and McCain has spent the most for the Republican side, b/c they have the best organizations. I'm almost certain that Clinton and Edwards have spent the most on the democratic side. Although, I'd love to see actual numbers and concrete evidence of a built-in system.

Posted by: reason | April 4, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

DTM notes
"I think you may have been suggesting that Obama's numbers actually indirectly help all of the other candidates in the field, and if so, I definitely agree."

Yes, pretty much. I was implying that we'll all benefit, as potential voters, but the reason is the same one you cite: removing HRC as the de-facto nominee-in-waiting improves the dialogue as voters are more likely to explore alternative candidates. How refreshing if there were a real primary next year...

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, sry lyle didn't realize there was forgery afoot.

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Invested in Halliburton, William? Or just nuts? I suspect the latter.

The sailors were in disputed waters, which both Iraq and Iran claim. There is no agreed upon border. Therefore, the British sailors could have been treated as spies, much as the Brits would have treated Iranians in their waters as spies.

The problem with folks like you is that you live in a cartoon world, with no sense of history or reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I have serious doubts about Obama's readiness to be president. However, he is eloquent and extremely bright - President of the Harvard Law Review for crying out loud. I don't think anyone will shred him in a debate - it is more likely that Obama will shred his opponent. To a certain extent, his inexperience on the national scene can be sold as "a breath of fresh air" and he can present himself as someone who will cut through the partisan gamesmanship that has dominated Washington for the last 12 years or so.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 4, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

anonymous writes
"Word to the RNC: don't even think of hitting the delete button."

Methinks that advice is late.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

When Henry Waxman sees something he does not like, he sinks his teeth into the problem until he gets all the answers...and I mean all of them. Via emptywheel, we find out that Rep. Waxman has a teensy little request for the RNC:

To assist the Committee in its investigation of these issues, I request that you provide any electronic messages sent or received by Karl Rove, J. Scott Jennings, or any other White House officials using accounts maintained by the RNC that relate to (1) the January 26, 2007, PowerPoint presentation at GSA, (2) the presentation of any similar political briefings at other federal agencies or to other federal employees, or (3) the use of federal agencies or resources to help Republican candidates.

Shorter Waxman: turn over the information and no one gets hurt, unless of course, you've been committing crimes. Then all bets are off.

I don't know about you, but I'm sensing that Rep. Waxman knows a whole lot more than he's saying publicly, because he's a cards close to the vest kinda guy. Word to the RNC: don't even think of hitting the delete button.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

If the Iranians have tortured or otherwise harmed the sailors they kidnapped, especially the woman, Britain should grow a pair and take decisive action, such as bombing the Busheher reactor, or having MI-6 take out Ahmadjihad.

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with some of the 15 British military personnel held for almost two weeks, after vowing to set them free. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the announcement comes as "a profound relief."

• Blair: 'We bear you no ill will'

Ah man, cheney must be pounding his tiny fists on the table. now we don't have an excuse to attack them. peace is terrible for business, you know... taxpayers aren't willing to shell out unaccountable billions to black hole contracts.

that's why the iraq war will never end if they can help it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

William,
You are just missing it.
A Head-to-head polls on the esteemable Rasmussen Reports on polls(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/politics.htm)Reveals that on average, Obama actually does better than Hillary or Edwards against Giuliani. The gap between Obama and Giuliani has also been closing noticeably, and now stands at only 1% below Rudy(a statistical tie).

Gulliani and Mcain beat Hillary by over 7-8%.Actually Hillary has never beat any Republican candidates including Mcain.At one point she tied with Thompson(the new Repub guy)!!!

What does that tell you?Hillary leads on the Dems side becoz of Bills influence and if the Dems are duped by the rating on the Dems side, they are cooked come 2008!!!

Posted by: CheckPoint | April 4, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

William,
You are just missing it.
A Head-to-head polls on the esteemable Rasmussen Reports on polls(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/politics.htm)Reveals that on average, Obama actually does better than Hillary or Edwards against Giuliani. The gap between Obama and Giuliani has also been closing noticeably, and now stands at only 1% below Rudy(a statistical tie).

Gulliani and Mcain beat Hillary by over 7-8%.Actually Hillary has never beat any Republican candidates including Mcain.At one point she tied with Thompson(the new Repub guy)!!!

What does that tell you?Hillary leads on the Dems side becoz of Bills influence and if the Dems are duped by the rating on the Dems side, they are cooked come 2008!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

'DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held talks with Syria's president Wednesday despite White House objections, saying she pressed Bashar al-Assad over Syrian support for militant groups and passed him a peace message from Israel's prime minister.'

The Saudi, Israelis and Syrians are starting to all work together to achieve some kind of stability in the area. The neocons and war profiteers are going insane...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

MikeB,

I learned long ago not to try to impute motives to people parodying others (and similar behavior) on internet discussion boards. In this case, whoever is parodying William could have a political agenda, but they could also just dislike William, or think he deserves to be treated as a racist, or so on. So, I would suggest not making assumptions about this person, and if you see fit, you can just ignore them.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

...Guiliani is the biggest corporate swine of them all.

and here's another gopie brain surgeon:

'What does Obama believe in, if anything?

What kind of tax rates would he like to legislate? Where does he stand on terror'

what kind of 'tax breaks would the President legislate'? Hello? He's not a legislator, my dullard friend. He's an executive.

Where does he stand on terror? Why, I bet he's against it! I bet he's against fear, and hatred and paranoia, too!

This is why we have a maroon like bush in the WH. Republicans are apparently, not real bright.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

JD: I must be doing something right when you start answering my imposter. Oh well, I guess some of you can't get over how great the campaign for Hillary is going.

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

William am I, a conservative brawn
I post on the Fix all day long
I don't go to school
I don't follow the rules
Because I am really cool.

One fine day I day I was told by my mama
That my daddy was really Barack Obama
I started to cry
And asked her why,
I sat down on the floor
And did commence to implore,
Daddy Barack to spare me a spanking.

I love to talk about "Dems" all day,
but drindl wishes I would just go away,
if you're not nice to me I just may,
stop, please don't call me gay.

Willy Willie Williaam

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, NewGenXer - Looked and other than doing a lot of blathering he evidently doesn't believe in much of anything. I suggest that people go to:

www.whereistand.com/Stands/BarackObama/Detail/Compare?list=HillaryClinton

That site compares stances on issues, using the latest voting records and speaches and writings of the candidates. Both Obama and Bush are more MORE gun control laws, FOR granting amnesty to the 20 million or so illegals already in this country, FOR MORE H1B visas, FOR MORE L1 guest worker visa, FOR continued tax supports for companies outsourcing American jobs, for continuing the Republican passed legislation that gives corporate officers a get out jail for free card when the corporation they are supposedly overseeing loots people retirement savings. They are, in a word, Bush clones. Watch political contributions to the campaign committees and you can pretty much determine who are the corporate lap dogs - Obama, Romney, Clinton, McCain, Biden, Thompson. The actual independents are Gulliani, Edards, Richardson and Hagel. *EVERYONE* else is simply antoher corporate swine.

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The first round of fundraising is impressive in that more voters are getting involved in selecting the party nominees. Barack Ombama enlarged the donor pool of small contributors, freezing out PAC's and lobbyists. Maybe this election will be more about the issues and less about what's good for special interest groups. There is hope.

Posted by: Michaele | April 4, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Will the real William please stand up? Beats me, kid. All of the posts signed by you sound just like you, so how would we know? Most of the zouk mockers are satire -- but yours sounds like YOU. But maybe you ARE a schizo and you don't know it. However, this sounds like something zouk would say:

'But in wacky liberal areas like the Northeast and West Coast' which is of course, like half the country. So I guess that would make them 'mainstream' rather than 'wacky'.

But whomever wrote it, my apologies to Cornelius from all of us who are sane, that you had to even read that skin-crawling racist rant.

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

No, silly, I'm the real William. Don't you just love Mitt's hair? He can "convert me" any time, LOL.

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

STOP POSTING UNDER MY NAME!!!

That post was not by me either!!!

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

DTM, William - DTM, you need to do a lot more than that. Go read the faked posts. The person posting is evidently considers themselves to be a liberal and has conveinced themselves that they are engaged in some twisted form of parody. This doesn't speak well of liberals, in general, and I am embarrased by and for them....but I can convince myself that they are either an Obama or Clinton supporter and therefore too stupid and trivial to be voting in the first place.

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

William, the real one, here. I have now been misrepresented by these other two imposters for long enough. The above post was NOT by me, William... just a ploy to make it lok authentic. This being the United States of America, I enjoy freedom of speech and can say whatever I want to about hip-hop, women, and minorities in general. And no, I do NOT apologize for my grade-school behavior of rhyming Obama's name with undesirable names and words. Why, when I was growing up back in the Christian Identity compound, if another student had a name which rhymed with anything we thought was bad or stupid, we used to beat them up. I still have fond memories of the a family named "Baggett" moved to town... got suspended for ten days, but it was worth it.

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Where he stands? For us all at http://www.barackobama.com/

Posted by: NewGenXer | April 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

DTM, thank you.

That post was not by me. It seems to be an attempt to "caricaturize" my posts by writing something similar to things I say, but making them more extreme.

I do not think black people are dysfunctional or unproductive, or the other things that poster wrote.

Chris Cilliza, can you please delete that post?

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater,

Perhaps, but kids today grew up in an entirely post-Blondie (indeed, post-Beastie Boys) era. For these kids, Hip Hop has been a very large segment of pop music for the entire time they have been listening to music. So, for them, it is natural to do something like learn Hip Hop dancing, and if it happens that they live in a place populated by all, or almost all, white kids, then their Hip Hop dancing classes may end up all white.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like to know her reasoning for this massive expenditure."

In order to demonstrate her "viability" and "electability" as a presidential candidate, she had to win convincingly in NY.

Her victory was never in doubt, but a 54% win would have cast doubt on her presidential viability.

So she spent tons of money trying to win over swing voters and smother her opponent.

Also, she wanted to demostrate that she could win over rural swing voters in upstate NY, so she spent a lot of money doing that.

Apparently, she raised 50 mil for her senate campaign, so she has 13-15 million left, plus her 26 million in presidential fundraising.

If necessary, she could technically transfer that money to her presidential account, which would give her a total of around 40 million.

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey, whoever is posting the racist dribble about Obama, grow up! You sound like Ann Coulter. The misinformation campaign of Fox news like dribble has backfired. The people have spoken and they want Obama. So all the hate, and racism you can create will not dissuade a nation ready for positive change.

Posted by: AgainstRacism | April 4, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I withdraw my last comment in case that was not really William.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, if there was any remaining doubt that William is in fact a racist (whether he believes he is or not), I would think his little diatribe against white kids adopting hip hop culture should just about settle that issue.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

STOP IT, stop mimicking me.

Waaahh!!

Boo hoo hoo!!!

I want my mommy!

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Wow - I just read in the Post that HRC spent $37 million on her reelection race in New York last year, against light GOP opposition. That number deserves some analysis and explanation. It is far beyond what was required to defeat her opponent and about what she spent in her first race. I'd like to know her reasoning for this massive expenditure.

Posted by: WesfromGA (Obama supporter) | April 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

STOP posting under MY name!!!

ATTENTION!

The above post was NOT by me!!

Though it seems to mimick the style of my posts.

Chris Cillizza, the Rules say that people who post under others' names will have their posts deleted.

KOZ, I, and other conservatives on this site have been consistently targetted by copycats and people who mimic us.

Can you PLEASE institute registration for posting?

It would improve greatly the discourse on this site.

Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

DTM: yes, but I'm fairly certain (I hope) that hip hop dance classes populated solely by white students weren't around when Blondie or even the Beastie Boys started up.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

By the way, realclearpolitics keeps track of head-to-head polls (hypothetical matchups in the general election). On average, Obama actually does the best against Giuliani among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. The gap between Obama and Giuliani has also been closing noticeably, and is down to around a 1% average advantage for Giuliani in the latest polls.

So, as often seems to be the case, William's speculation appears to be contradicted by the available evidence.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

This reminds me of the Paul Trible/Marshall Coleman GOP gubernatorial primary in Virginia in 1989. Trible was an up-and-coming superstar Senator who was a heavy favorite to win the primary. He was also the darling of party insiders. Coleman, on the other hand, was a washed-up former lieutenant governor who was given little chance to win.

Naturally, Trible was able to raise more money. However, he reserved much of it for the general election campaign. Coleman, however, spent most of his on attack ads leading up to the primary. Trible, thinking he couldn't lose, paid little attention to those ads and did not respond to them. As a result, Coleman pulled a stunning upset in the primary and Trible was left sitting on tons of unspent cash.

By the way, using the money to run as an independent was not an option for Trible, as Virginia has a "sore loser" law that prevents primary losers from turning around and running as independents in the general election.

Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | April 4, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Drindl

"It's all the rage for white kids in New York state, where I live. Apparently for high school kids all over the country"

Not quite all over the country. But in wacky liberal areas like the Northeast and West Coast, there are enough whites kids who have no self pride or sense of identity, so apparently they feel that it's "cool" to emulate black gang members.

It's not something you should be condoning.

And anyway, no self-respecting white kids are "whiggers", which, by the way, stands for "white n-gger" (Something John Edwards would know all about.)

Why any white person would want to emulate what is perhaps the most unproductive, dysfunctional, and crime-committing group of Americans, is incomprehensible to me.

"I see far, far, less racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry among young people today than when I was young"

Yeah, decades of brainwashing and indoctrination of our young by devious liberal bent on destroying this country has taken its toll.

"I mean, there's still the south"

Thank heavens for that. What's Harold Ford doing these days, aside from not being a senator who dates white women? >:)


"But for the most part, I'm beginning to wonder if it is just possible that someone called Barack Obama might get elected."

Keep on wondering, because its not. Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot take Ohio, or any other Bush 2004 state, and against a moderate Rep like FDT or Rudy, he would also lose some or all of the states Kerry took with less than 55%, such as WI, OR, WA, NJ, MN, MI, PA.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but Barack Hussein does not appeal to the "silent majority". If I remember correctly, Howard Dean was really popular among the liberal base as well. Being popular with the liberal base, or winning over the vaunted "rural Illinois voters" does not translate into support from the silent majority.

I mean, come on, the guy's middle name is Hussein!!! His first name rhymes with Iraq and his last, with Osama. Osama Obama.

His mom is white, and his dad black. Yeah, that will play real well in Kentucky.

He's a closet Muslim who went to a Madras. (I know that's not true, but people will believe it, so the fact that it's not true doesnt matter.)

He has a far left record, but votes "present" on key issues.

He grew up in Indonesia.

He is unelectable.

"In any case, I think his meteroric rise is bad news for movement conservatives. there is just no one in the enormous republican field who is generating this much excitement."

And your point is????

Obama is only popular with liberal Democrats. He does not appeal to conservatives or swing voters.

Rudy would crush him, and if Thompson runs, conservatives will get almost as excited about him as libs are about Obama.

" Mitt is raising the money, but will cons really vote for him, once they know more about him?"

No. He's completely untrustworthy, a political chameleon with a far left record, who, once elected, used his governorship as a platform to run for president while trashing the people who elected him. He has sleazy fundraising practices, too. He has no core values, and is a shameless self-promoter.

And he's a Mormon.

So he can raise all the money he wants. He's not getting the nom.


Posted by: William | April 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: running down to Ikea to buy my rocking chair now.

The irony of this is that Obama brings to the public stage the kind of inspiring persona that Reagan used to win crossover votes from Democrats. None of the current R candidates has that. Add to that the fact that he's a heck of a lot smarter than RR (and won't spend his days napping in the WH) and he looks pretty desirable.

I like the "experience" cartoons I've seen lately. Rumsfield had a ton of experience. Cheney has a ton of experience. Obama, not so much. Which one of the three would we rather see as president?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, Obama was editor of Harvard law review, he's not a fool nor is he going to get creamed in any debate. The idea of Guiliani or McCain talkng circles around him is ludicrus. You can debate if they have the better resume, but you can't deny Obama is very intelligent, if not brilliant.

I think the primary money is an interesting question that should get more scrutiny. Remember, Obama and McCain agreed to public financing if they both won the nomination, Clinton entered into no such pact. This means Clinton is likely putting a lot more money into the general election fund than anyone else, especially since it is the general campaign where she will have to work the hardest to fix her image.

Posted by: Michael | April 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

William, why is Obama so unelectable? He's intelligent, a good speaker, now very well-funded, establishing a record of bipartisan cooperation at least on some issues...?

I'm one of Obama's constituents in Chicago, and not a party-line Democrat. (I may be one of the only African-Americans to have voted for both Perot AND Ralph Nader.) I'm new to this forum, and I'm trying hard not to put it down to what others have said are your racist attitudes, but you give no other reasons. As one of Obama's constituents, I can tell you that he has been an effective and responsive legislator, and having met him twice, I can vouch for his sincerity and the respect with which he treats voters.

Sincerely,

Cornelius Rafik

Posted by: Cornelius Rafik | April 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The moaning you hear are the Drudgies who want Hillary to be the Dem nominee.... who else could rev up the GOP base and get out the GOP vote better than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Maybe they'll start sending her money like they did for "Lie"berman.

Seems like the trashing the Clintons took from their former "big-time $$$" Hollywood supporter Geffen contributed to the toll.

Generally, there is joy in Middle-classville as much for Hillary's slide as Obama's homerun.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

I think you may have been suggesting that Obama's numbers actually indirectly help all of the other candidates in the field, and if so, I definitely agree.

Judge C. Crater,

White kids adopting hip-hop culture is in fact old news. Just consider The Beastie Boys, Eminem, crossovers like Kid Rock, and so on. Heck, even Blondie did a rap record ("Rapture"), which was actually the first rap recording to reach #1 on the pop charts. As for hip hop dance in particular, obviously it goes along with the music, but you can also see its influences in all sorts of other areas (eg, cheerleading, sometimes to the shock and dismay of certain members of the audience).

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Nope! I just looked at Obama's stands on a number of issues: whereistand.com/Stands/BarackObama/Detail/Compare?list=HillaryClinton
And he is another East Coast gun control nut AND suuports continued guest worker programs and outsourcing. So, my party has TWO Bush clones. God help us if this is the best we can do.

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

William claims
"Thompson or Guiliani or whomever the GOP nominee is will shred Obama in a debate.

Can you imagine Obama squaring off against Rudy? It ain't gonna be pretty."

Are you sure? The problem that the GOP has is Iraq. Certainly Rudy '9/11 24/7' Giuliani is tied to failed war policy, as is Sen McCain. Romney has no more foreign policy creds. Perhaps Hollywood Fred can invent a suitable role to play that will look tough on terror, yet free himself from the Bush debacle. It will be interesting to see how the GOP candidates attempt to distance themselves from the catastrophe that is our involvement in Iraq.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Only William could think that Obama raising 25 million from more than 100,000 donors is good news for the GOP. When Democrats have anything close to financial parity with the GOP, they win elections. When they are close to financial parity and ALL the GOP candidates are huge Iraq war supporters -- things could get ugly.

I won't try to argue with you now William, but I will remind you of your prediction once the election rolls around. Hope you enjoy crowe...

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

'Can you imagine Obama squaring off against Rudy? It ain't gonna be pretty.'

No, I think not, William. I think there are a lot of folks who aren't as racist as you, and will simply see a real change, a fresh face, a new direction for america in Obama.

And what they will see in rudy is a man with no moral compass, an opportunistic war profiteer with dirty hands and shady mob connections like kerik, raking it in from secret, no-bid contracts, gorging at the public trough, a shameless 3 time adulter who publicly humiliated and dumped his wife and children, an authoritarian who openly declares his scorn for the Constitution, and from a policy standpoint, a bush retread.

In another words, typical gop.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Hillary! All this talk about maintaining troops in Iraq way past 2009 is just plain politically stupid. It's like Kerry saying back in 2004 that he would still vote for the war with all the facts he knew by then. People want to hear how the next prez will get us out of Iraq, not to continue our staying there. We've got the current guy for that. Get it?

Posted by: Monica | April 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

This is great news. At least someone is throwing a wrench into the machine poltiis of Clinton. But, before I support Obama (my first choice is Edwards, followed by Bill Richardson) I want to know his stance on outsourcing and guest workers. I mean, is he going to continue to allow corporations to replace Amercian workers with cheap foreign labor? Is he going to propose huge fines on employers who use illegal immigrant labor that takes jobs away from American's? Is he going to use tax laws, customs duties, and other fees to make goods and services produced due to outsourcing not such a good deal? We need a President that understands that the Amercian people want jobs, want work, and want wages trhat will allow them to raise families. Is Obama that man? Or is he another Bush-Clinton clone?

Posted by: MikeB | April 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

This is GREAAT news for Republicans!

Hitlery Rodham Clintoon is pretty much unelectable, but at least she had better chances in the general than Obama.

If Obama gets the nomination, we are guaranteed another 4 years in the White House!!

Thompson or Guiliani or whomever the GOP nominee is will shred Obama in a debate.

Can you imagine Obama squaring off against Rudy? It ain't gonna be pretty.

If Obama gets the nomination, the 2008 general is gonna look a lot like McGovern-Nixon or Mondale-Reagan. Or Carter-Reagan, except Obama won't take Georgia.

With Obama and HRC unelectable, who else do the Dems have?

Edwards?? PLEASE. Unelectable, except maybe against Romney.

Dodd? He's Kerry Reloaded.

Richardson? Maybe, but he's got quite a bit of baggage, and other negatives.

Biden? Sorry, Big Joe, but you're going to need to raise more than 2 paltry millions if you want to compete with the likes of Hillary and Obama. I can't really see Biden taking off.

Which is a shame, since he's probably the most electable of all the Dems running.

The role of red state moderate Dem is still unfilled.

And I can't think of anyone willing to run and fill it.

No, the nominee will likely be HRC or Obama. Maybe Richardson.

Edwards is on borrowed time, Dodd has nothing to offer, and Biden doesn't have the cash to compete.

Posted by: Willaim | April 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

25 million was good news for Obama. He will not be the nominee. His contributions will all transfer to Hillary in the next quarter because he is not electable. Remember Howard Dean, Phil Graham etc.
Hillary 08.

Posted by: annie58 | April 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

'Did I miss an article in the Styles section about how learning hip-hop dance is all the rage for white kids in NH'

Actually, you may have, Judge. It's all the rage for white kids in New York state, where I live. Apparently for high school kids all over the country. There is a whole social group [they've gone way beyond the old nerds and jocks labels] who call themselves 'whigger,s' which stands for white [n word]. To them it is not derogatory at all.

I see far, far, less racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry among young people today than when I was young. I mean, there's still the south and sadly, kids like William. But for the most part, I'm beginning to wonder if it is just possible that someone called Barack Obama might get elected.

In any case, I think his meteroric rise is bad news for movement conservatives. there is just no one in the enormous republican field who is generating this much excitement. Mitt is raising the money, but will cons really vote for him, once they know more about him?

Posted by: drindl | April 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

This is great news for Republicans!

Hitlery Rodham Clintoon is pretty much unelectable, but at least she had better chances in the general than Obama.

If Obama gets the nomination, we are guaranteed another 4 years in the White House!

Thompson or Guiliani or whomever the GOP nominee is will shred Obama in a debate.

Can you imagine Obama squaring off against Rudy? It ain't gonna be pretty.

If Obama gets the nomination, the 2008 general is gonna look a lot like McGovern-Nixon or Mondale-Reagan. Or Carter-Reagan, except Obama won't take Georgia.

With Obama and HRC unelectable, who else do the Dems have?

Edwards?? PLEASE. Unelectable, except maybe against Romney.

Dodd? He's Kerry Reloaded.

Richardson? Maybe, but he's got quite a bit of baggage, and other negatives.

Biden? Sorry, Big Joe, but you're going to need to raise more than 2 paltry millions if you want to compete with the likes of Hillary and Obama. I can't really see Biden taking off.

Which is a shame, since he's probably the most electable of all the Dems running.

The role of red state moderate Dem is still unfilled.

And I can't think of anyone willing to run and fill it.

No, the nominee will likely be HRC or Obama. Maybe Richardson.

Edwards is on borrowed time, Dodd has nothing to offer, and Biden doesn't have the cash to compete.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Theres an old saying- a fool and his money are easily parted. What exactly are these buyers getting for their buck?

What does Obama believe in, if anything?

What kind of tax rates would he like to legislate? Where does he stand on terror?

Does he want a return to LBJs War on Poverty, which after trillions of dollars spent, made the situation worse?

Posted by: mhr614 | April 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Great, great news! Already this morning, I've sent Obama a little more money, and I bet I'm not alone! The current generation of political leaders in both parties has created the unspeakable mess our country is in. It really IS time for a change. Imagine that.

Posted by: Casey | April 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Tina: Ummm, Condi Rice, "Token"? Hey, if the shoe fits!! In her case, I don't think it's racist. She's a disaster as Sec'y of State and don't get me started on her role as National Security Advisor. Remember September 11th? She gives tokens a bad name.

Posted by: C-dog | April 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the $25 million means nothing, the Republican dream of an Obama candidacy, becomes a nightmare if he runs with Gore. I think, that Republicans are wrong about an Obama candidacy, along the lines of "be careful what you wish for," but I think a good Obama run in 2008 might be overshadowed by a great Obama presidency in 2016. Sometimes I think I am more for Obama, than he is for himself.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | April 4, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I think that this shows how much of an absolute genius Axelrod is. This is a very impressive number.

Posted by: George | April 4, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

What is really "inevitable" is more people are for Obama as the democratic nominee for President.

Even old Bill Clinton couldn't help Hillary beat the Obama campaign. What does that tell you?

Posted by: Tk | April 4, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Obama poses Monday with hip-hop dance students outside the Peterborough Diner in Peterborough, N.H. "

To address the elephant in the room: why are all of those "hip-hop dance students" white? Did I miss an article in the Styles section about how learning hip-hop dance is all the rage for white kids in NH? If so, I've officially graduated to Old Fart status.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 4, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Political Genius: Gonzales / Rumsfeld '08, what do you say?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I just made a contribution to the Obama campaign. Want to support a Democrat who can win, and this remarkable fund raising result convinced me he is a most viable candidate. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but would prefer Obama.

I wonder how many others like me will now decide to commit with at least a small financial contribution?

Posted by: Shininglight | April 4, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Highest Bake Sale Receipts: Tim Kalemkarian, Most Raffle Tickets Sold: Tim Kalemkarian, Most T-Shirts Sold on a Tuesday: Tim Kalemkarian. Tim Kalemkarian: he's resourceful like that.

Posted by: anonymous | April 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, jsmbh is aware of that. jsmbh is asking for the whole distribution of donation sizes.

Posted by: Golgi | April 4, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

You know the kicker to all this is that if Senator Clinton had apologized for her vote for the war this would be a non-issue. Now with the war wrapped around her neck like an albatros and the shell of invincibility gone what makes her so attractive as a candidate?

Nothing.

Posted by: Andy R | April 4, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey anonymous, how did Tim Kalemkarian do in fundraising for the first quarter?

Posted by: curious | April 4, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

DTM writes
"As everyone is noting, this undermines a major part of the "inevitability" argument for Clinton, as well as her "electability" argument."

I view the announcement as excellent news that the Democratic Party will be forced to have a real conversation with and among primary voters in order to choose the best candidate for the job (whom would not be Hillary).

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

CLARIFYING NOTE: Obama did not accept contributions from PAC's or Lobbyists whereas Hillary did. Obama's money came from the people, from individuals.

With over 100,000 individuals contributing, the people have given a loud message: OBAMA 2008!!!

Posted by: T | April 4, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

jmsbh says
"It will be particularly interesting to see if these 100,000 donors gave small amounts, under the $2300 limit and who could be approached again."


Not to be snotty, but simple math tells me that had 100,000 donors given $2300 each, Sen Obama would have a war chest worth $230 Million. Going in the opposite direction, the numbers average out to $250 per donor.

Posted by: bsimon | April 4, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

As everyone is noting, this undermines a major part of the "inevitability" argument for Clinton, as well as her "electability" argument.

Incidentally, I also agree the delay in reporting by Obama's camp was simply masterful. It probably isn't a big thing by itself, but it does show they know a thing or two about running a campaign.

Posted by: DTM | April 4, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

OK lylepink, we get it, you like HRC.

Still, her negatives are huge, she's probably got every supporter she's going to get with nowhere to go but down, and her main asset is she's married to Bill and the dems want to recapture those glory days (the 2 for 1 theory).

Her main chance for victory was the coronation route, which is gone now.

Not too promising.

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are officially "old news." Where Bill had charm, Hillary is just plain unauthentic. The Clintons are very polarizing and a majority of people have said they would never vote for Hillary. The Democratics are looking for a real winner. And the Obama campaign has smashed the Clinton legacy with a new political era. America and the world needs this.

Posted by: Sis | April 4, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but, GUYS... Hillary? I mean, Hillary! IMO, she is still our next POTUS. Is anybody listening? Hillary! Hillary! Hill..ary....?
IMO POTUS, IMO POTUS, IMO.. PO... boo hoo hoo!

Posted by: lylepink | April 4, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Still ten months before the first vote gets cast.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 4, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

'Alberto Gonzales is going to be the next president of the United States.'

LOL -- will he govern from his jail cell?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Please note the Obama campaign is saying OVER $25M and OVER 100,000 donors. Sounds like he just doesn't want to hurt Hillary's feelings.

Posted by: era | April 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's double-digit lead in the key primary state of New Hampshire has eroded substantially since February, while John Edwards has moved closer, according to a poll released Tuesday.

The CNN/WMUR presidential primary poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, found that Clinton was the choice of 27 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Granite State, down from 35 percent in the same poll in February.

Meanwhile, Edwards, who was the choice of just 16 percent in February, saw his support jump to 21 percent, vaulting him past Sen. Barack Obama into second place.

The poll's sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points means that Clinton and Edwards are in a statistical dead heat at the front of the pack, along with Obama, who came in at 20 percent, the poll found. The Illinois senator was at 21 percent in February."

It looks like Edwards is gaining and Obama is maintaining in New Hampshire. Senator Clinton is slipping. I think a lot of Democrats are very uneasy at the prospect of such a divisive figure as the party's pesidential nominee.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 4, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

primary cash. hillary is afraid to release how much she has for the primary. obama has said something like 23 million is primary money, and edwards has said 13 million. She is DOA.

Posted by: will c | April 4, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I hope the competition will make both Hillary and Barack better, sharper candidates, not meaner. But that's probably just wishful thinking. Politicians almost never can resist the temptation to go negative, but Obama claims to be a different kind of politician. We'll see.

It's interesting to note that Matthew Dowd, the Bush/Cheney pollster who is now disillusioned with Bush, said he might be inclined to support Obama because of Obama's efforts to rise above the smallness of our politics.

But, really, is a majority of voters ready to elect someone named "Barack Hussein Obama" as their president? I'm skeptical, even though I like the man.

Posted by: Progressive | April 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Unless they catch Obama in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, HRC is cooked.

Posted by: JD | April 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, all have raised huge amounts of money. The best on the other side for funds is Romney who got a real boost from his expected and enthusiastic support out of Mormon Utah and the large population of Mormons in California. It is bad news for the Republican party as Democrats are out raising Republicans by far. Less than a generation ago the Republicans used to out raise the Democrats 7 to 1.in dollars In the 90s it dropped to 3 to 2. Now it has reversed 2 to 3 or 2 to 1 and that spells the doom of the Republican Party as it takes a boatload more money to elect a Republican running for president than a Democrat. As far as money is concerned for the foreseeable future it looks like the Republican party will come to a gun fight armed with a knife.

Posted by: Redman | April 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

An amazing figure posted by Barack Obama considering that he doesn't have the money machine of Hillary Clinton. With Hillary sliding in the polls, Obama will take over as the Democratic frontrunner!

Posted by: PoliticalCritic.com | April 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Why are you all wasting my MFing time?

Alberto Gonzales is going to be the next president of the United States.

Why?

He's got executive branch experience as White House counsel.

He's run the Justice Department, standing up to the president and the Republican Party when he's had to (all of the investigations into Republicans under his watch like Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and threatening to resign when the FBI's search of Rep. Jefferson's office was questioned...wisely, Bush backed off when Gonzales stood his ground).

He's been a judge, he speaks Spanish, he's got an extraordinary life story of rising up from poverty.

His current duties as Attorney General are preventing him from launching a full-scale campaign, but just wait a few months.

President Gonzales. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Posted by: Political Genius | April 4, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Ouch! That hurt, didn't it Hillary? HA!

Obama is not my guy, but anything that can be done to knock Hillary down a couple notches is okay by me!

This is wonderful!

Posted by: Shaun | April 4, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

it's possible Obama raised more money than any other Democrat during the quarter that can be spent in the primary.

Not "possible" Chris; it's "almost certain".

Posted by: pservelle | April 4, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Isaiah we don't know how much of Hillary's contirbutions are for the Primary yet, It is very possible that Obama raised more then she did for the primaries. That should be troubling if you are a true Hillary supporter.

Also a recent poll in New Hampshire had Hilary slipping to Edwards and Obama. It might end up a Edwards Obama race with Hillary as an afterthought.

Posted by: Andy R | April 4, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Actually, we don't know if he's first or second in fundraising for the Quarter. Hillary hasn't said how much of her "26 million" figure is primary money vs. general election cash. It is QUITE POSSIBLE that Obama actually raised MORE money than hillary did. If that's the case, then Hillary is looking much less inevitable than her supporters would have you believe.

Now, does that mean she's done? No, of course not. But the reality is that everyone assumed that one of her biggest strengths would be her ability to outraise everyone else. These reports show that's not true.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

great effort. you can't help but be impressed with his effort and ABILITY. If you thought he couldn't do it -- I guess money talks!!!!

Posted by: carmenah | April 4, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean raised a record breaking 40 million online in 03 and look where it got him. Yes this is impressive, but no it doesn't mean much. He's still 2nd in fundraising and 3rd in polling.

Posted by: mountain man | April 4, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Any hopes that Hillary had of dispatching Obama early have gone up in smoke with this news. It's no doubt going to be battle to the bloody end now. To quote former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, "I'd like to have the popcorn concessions for this thing."

Let the games begin!

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | April 4, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter (and online contributor), all I can do is laugh as Mr. Obama's supporters go on and on about our campaign's impending death.

The political battlefield is littered with presidential candidates who raised obscene amounts of money and were beaten by far superior campaigns.

So enjoy your day in the sun. The media should take credit too for helping to create your movement.

But just to keep the record straight, we WON the money primary of Q1.

Posted by: Isaiah | April 4, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey C-Dog, I hope the people also stop calling Condi Rice a TOKEN. Neither side should be using racist remarks, ok?

The NOVICE term means Obama is not as experienced in years of service as a governor, a Cabinet member, or like Biden on the Foreign Policy Committee for decades.

Being a fresh face for the Democrats is a key asset. But the decision for winning or not will come from his ideas for our nation, and that is only going to be decided by Democrats. The votes in Iowa, and New Hampshire will set the tone toward Super Tuesday.

May the best person win.

Posted by: Tina | April 4, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Nice $$ numbers for Barack. But has Obama hit a bump with his verbal mistake on Iraq? Those left wing blogs can be very powerful when they get angry.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=128

Posted by: mp | April 4, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The other thing, and I think this is a big thing, is that the marginal value of a dollar for Obama is far higher than it is for HRC.

By that I mean that people already know HRC and have made up their mind about her, one way or another. Yes, she can buy lots of commercials with her cash, but those commercials will be hard pressed to persuade people to change their minds.

For Obama, on the other hand, he'll be able to use his cash to really introduce himself to the populace with a media campaign. Now, his message might not attract people - though there is no sign of that amongst the Democrats - but at least his cash and his commercials will enable him to reach people who are still trying to better understand him.

Posted by: Choska | April 4, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Very impressive . It will be particularly interesting to see if these 100,000 donors gave small amounts, under the $2300 limit and who could be approached again.
Further, the Obama strategy of waiting 2 days AFTER the other figures were reported was brilliant. Unless he was clearly going to surpass Clinton's total, she would grab the headlines. Now he has pushed her aside and is the story. Not bad for someone with "less savvy" than the Bill/Hill crowd

Posted by: jmsbh | April 4, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I hope this total puts an end to all of those haters that keep calling Obama a "novice". The fact of the matter is, he has been elected to office more times than Hillary Clinton. Then, without the help of a former president, he raises almost as much money as Hillary from more people. Seems to me that Hillary might make a good VICE PRESIDENTIAL running mate for Obama.

Posted by: C-dog | April 4, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The fascinating number is that Obama received more donations from online contributors (50,000) than Hillary had in total number of contributors.

Posted by: Choska | April 4, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Wow. Wow. Money is only money, but I'd love to hear the folks who say Obama can't win try to spin these numbers. The guy already has more grassroots support than any other candidate in the Democratic field. Now, he's showing he can match Clinton dollar for dollar? That's a pretty fierce combination of resources.

Posted by: Colin | April 4, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company