Edwards on fire

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM EST

I saw on Thursday afternoon, that the Edwards sent out an email with an image that included the amount raised online and the amount of those who had given. I'd just written a post on Obama the day previous, about how astonishing their numbers of those who had given compared with Dean's in '03 at this time in the cycle. At the time, Obama's numbers were at 70,000 and there were targeting 75,000. Edwards was at 17,000.

Now, there's a bit of apples and oranges here, because Obama's numbers seem to be of all contributors (btw, rumor is that Obama is going to report numbers of $35M), whereas Edwards are the numbers only of those who contributed online.

But since that time, Edwards has about doubled his online contributor numbers-- now over 33K. In the same timeframe, Obama has increased his total numbers by 11K. In the last 36 hours of the online money race, Edwards supporters have turned it on.

That Edwards is using ActBlue to process his contributions is more than symbolic, as those resources are actually what will help to build the progressive netroots movement for the coming election cycles. When I was working on Warner's effort, we were also using ActBlue, but I think it would have been a tough barrier to cross to adopt the level of transparency that Edwards has done.

I've read the criticism of Obama (and the other '08'ers) over their campaign not embracing the netroots movement through using the movement tools like ActBlue. Clearly, the candidate and campaign that does so is an anomaly at this point in time. Having been inside campaigns when these decisions are made, I know that there are paradigmatic roadblocks of mental resistance to making such things happen.

But, for the campaign that does, it's an action that goes beyond talking about a movement to embracing the actual movement. That's all the more reason to heap praise on the Edwards campaign. The other campaigns could learn a lesson from the more effective outreach and engagement of the blogosphere side of the netroots that Edwards has performed during the first quarter. The Edwards team has tried new things, made some mistakes, but this is a big success.




Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 181 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

So it looks like they finally added in the non-Act Blue web contributions (from grassroots fund-raising contributions and Coulter Cash etc.). I was wondering how many of those there were. Looks like about 9k donations and 500k.

Pretty cool.


by adamterando on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:53:46 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

Yes, they added in a baseline of online contributions from outside of ActBlue.


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

Excellent post.

Regadless of candidate choice, all progressives should have an interest in developing and growing the netroots.  By using ActBlue, John Edwards is helping do so.

And of the top three, Edwards has appeared on blogs like Daily Kos the most.  I believe Obama went to Daily Kos once and was not impressed by the great unwashed in the netroots.  Clinton never comes by.  I "saw" John and Elizabeth Edwards on Daily Kos taking questions around Christmas, and I believe it was not the first time they had been there.

I have seen a comment by Elizabeth Edwards (I think on DailyKos) saying that she and her husband saw the the politcial blogs like this one and others as the new "town halls" of democracy.

They get it, at least more than others.


by littafi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:56:20 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 3)

I believe Obama went to Daily Kos once and was not impressed by the great unwashed in the netroots.

I remember that...people were basically dicks to him because he had the temerity to talk about things like bipartisanship and not engaging in hateful rhetoric to the other side. It was kind of sad that a community that progressive didn't get that bipartisan doesn't always mean capitulation of progressive values. It was kind of an anti-DLC, anti-centrist frenzy as I remember it. The worst part being that there was no reason for it whatsoever.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

There is a reason why I don't read the comments 90% of the time in dailykos.


by sterra on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

yeah, I used to just read Kos and the front-pagers, and skip the comments...but as I find myself bored I peek in sometimes. Here as well. I remember being there in the beginning, and when I made some comments, as a rural-born Dem promoting bipartisanship you'd think that I'd just peed in people's cereal.

I understand the DLC-thing, and that there is no reason to compromise with people who won't compromise with you, but they were downright hostile to me without giving it much thought.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His timing was also off (3.00 / 7)

He'd just been chiding Democrats for various failings like not taking people of faith seriously, and being too divisive.

Then comes to a partisan website and essentially shushes the unruly blogger hordes as if they were responsible for the sorry state of political reality. There was plenty of reason for frustration with Obama.

Things were pretty damn ugly out there before one word was ever blogged about politics.  Bloggers' anger is largely a reaction to the poisonous partisanship fostered by years of Republican strategies ineffectively answered by Democratic countermoves.

I like a lot about Obama, but that was a case of not knowing (or possibly caring) who your audience was, and what their concerns were.  (Which is not to excuse the inevitable rudeness that some commenters are prone to.)


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His timing was also off (3.00 / 3)

People at kos are furious at Obama for not doing more to get Lamont elected.  


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was also a great source of (3.00 / 1)

frustration.

And it gets rubbed raw again every time Lieberman opens his mouth, I'm afraid.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was also a great source of (3.00 / 1)

I think Edwards DID go campaign for Lamont. Kind of interesting.

It's like Lieberman is out of the R closet now after the election. It is a pity elections are six years away for him.


by del on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was also a great source of (3.00 / 1)

Can we please get over that campaign?  Can we please stop bringing it up as a way to say that one candidate is better than another?


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, why play the blame game? (none / 0)

Apparently some people are more interested in looking backward than moving forward.

Let's just turn the corner on that race.


by BingoL on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do not forget past mistakes. (none / 0)

Learn from them.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was also a great source of (none / 0)

Of course, lets not pay any attention to what they've done; let's just pay attention to what what they "say" they will do.  Actions speak louder than words.  Your argument about setting aside the Lamont campaign is so like the argument setting aside the reasons we went to war.  Yeah, forget whose fault it is; just go clean up their mess and pay for it.


Follow the money
by dkmich on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His timing was also off (3.00 / 0)

He'd just been chiding Democrats for various failings like not taking people of faith seriously, and being too divisive.

Then comes to a partisan website and essentially shushes the unruly blogger hordes as if they were responsible for the sorry state of political reality. There was plenty of reason for frustration with Obama.

That reminds me of his tendency not to simply pander to whatever crowd is in front of him, but to tell the truth as he sees it, even if its not a popular sentiment with the immediate audience. I had no problem with what he had to say, personally, because I knew he was right. I was a Warner/Clark guy at the time; I won't say that Obama won me over with his famous DailyKos diary, but I didn't resent him for it. It was sad to see people be so vulgar and take what he said so personally.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a difference between pandering (3.00 / 4)

and accepting the Republican framing-as he was doing then and is doing less of now-to chide your presumed allies.

There's also a difference between pandering and understanding the best way to communicate with a particular audience.  And with Senator Obama's background in organizing, he should know that difference very well.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's a difference between pandering (none / 0)

Wow. Thanks for the lesson.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nicely ironic tone. n/t (none / 0)


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You think you proved something. That's cute. n/t (none / 0)


by mihan on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A bit puzzled (3.00 / 1)

What exactly do you think I was trying to prove?

I was disputing your use of the word "pander" to describe building a rapport with an audience, but I can't think of any particular point I was trying to prove.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can play that game too (none / 0)

What do YOU think that I think you were trying to prove?

You see, that's all you are doing in that thread, which is using a variety of word and idea interpretations to continue an poorly-constructed argument, without adding any real substance to the discussion. Then you mention that my response to your lecture is ironic, as though that's supposed to say something about me, a person you don't know in any way. Its a total waste of time...I've just been jerking you off the past few comments.

Honestly it doesn't bother me, because in politics, generally people are going to believe what they want. If someone shows a strong belief that what Obama did at DailyKos was wrong, that's what they are going to believe at the end of discussions such as this.  

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer referred to this by saying that people are 'basically mule-headed'. I've got to go; This has been fun, though, thank you.


by mihan on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can play that game too (none / 0)

I don't know-which is why I asked the question.

I thought your characterization of the DK response in general was wrong-that Obama misunderstood his audience there if his desire was to connect with them.

If his desire was to declare his independence from the unruly netroots then his lack of "pandering" as you called it was not a bug, but a feature of the performance.   It's not an answer I know.

BTW, I wasn't yanking your chain, but thought we were actually having a conversation. One in which we disagreed, but a conversation.

My mistake. Given your own muleheadedness, I'll take your assessment of what I add to the conversation for everything it's worth. Which is zip.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn, I got served (none / 0)

Ouch!


by mihan on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damn, I got served (none / 0)

If you think you're going to stop me from arguing by pretending you aren't seriously engaged in the argument, you're much mistaken.

So, you can stop being Obnoxious for Obama anytime now.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.
by boadicea on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 11:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama seems to (3.00 / 3)

genuinely find liberal blogs too doctinaire. Remember when he said there was nothing "surprising" on Kos? Well then he won't be surprised that Edwards is thumping him over there.


by david mizner on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama seems to (3.00 / 1)

Doctrinaire is the wrong word, as the blogosphere doesn't really have any doctrine except stopping the losing streak. Hell, people like Kos are arguably not really liberals.

Still, I see your point. Nevertheless, preaching bipartisanship, particularly at that point, to that particular group was inadvisable. There are plenty of other things he could have talked about.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

Bpasrtisanship with Karl Rove is like giving the school bully your lunch money.  


by David Kowalski on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

For Obama: bi-partisanship is encouraging the GOP to vote with the Dems, not encouraging dems to vote with the GOP.  


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That doesn't make any sense (none / 0)

Bipartisanship is, by definition, compromise.

If it means getting Republicans to support Democratic policies, then it has no meaning.


by david mizner on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That doesn't make any sense (none / 0)

Its not that simple. On one hand you CAN say that its bi-partisan, for example, if Dems want universal healthcare, Republicans want private insurance, and they compromise to make a program that's somewhere in between.

But on the other hand, there are plenty of issues that can be pursued in a bi-partisan fashion. For instance, is production of ethanol not a bi-partisan issue? What about McCain-Feingold campaign finance? Coburn-Obama's federal funds transparancy act? Whatever you make think about those individual issues, they were bi-partisan in nature, and were crafted for the good of the nation.

There are literally infinite issues on which both sides can come together, and yet they don't. I choose to believe that this idea is what Obama is getting at. I don't doubt for a second that Obama knows when the GOP is acting in good faith, and when they are blocking good legislation on issues that are important to Democrats.

Sometimes we've got to take a step back and look at these things a different way.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the other hand (3.00 / 1)

there is a heck of a lot of very important stuff we've seen over the last six years that a bipartisan compromise just won't work on. That democrats were never hardly even talked to about.

Washington needs a 180 turn. And some issues are too important to compromise on. A government cannot be run by consensus. For many many issues there is no middle ground.


by okamichan13 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other hand (none / 0)

Of course I didn't say any such thing. Democrats have been right on a lot of issues, and Republicans have been beholden to special interests in too many ways. In those cases, you cram it down their freakin' throats.

I really don't think Obama is talking about capitulating on good legislation. Those that think that are really over-simplifying the matter, and that's sad because Republicans are the ones who need to over-simplify the issues, and I used to think that Dems were the ones who understood nuance.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other hand (none / 0)

What I think it is is that maybe it hasn't been clear enough which things are off the table for compromise.

A lot of democrats are I think at this point sick and tired of nuance, from anyone


by okamichan13 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other hand (none / 0)

What I think it is that maybe it hasn't been clear enough which things are off the table for compromise.

I'm sure we'll get to that when we come to it. When our side can set the terms of the debate, that'll be a good problem to have.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Jeez, I guess Obama has to go to the polls with Democrats he has instead of the Democrats he wishes he had.  Poor, poor Obama.  Kossack citizens and voters were dicks to him for no reason.  Just because they didn't like the Supreme Court being turned into a right wing regulating machine was no excuse to tell their party to step outside the beltway and get a clue who is who. Those damned Kossacks are such heathens.  Of all the Kossack termity to object to the corporate owned DLC and to take an elected official to task for wanting to negotiate with an enemy that would make Dahlmer look like a boy scout.   Bad Kossacks!


Follow the money
by dkmich on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

... and its not just while getting the campaign machinery ramped up (and as Senators that can shift resources from senate to Presidential funds, Hillary and Obame could do more ramping up without declaring) ... even after setting up an in-house system on their campaign site, they still use the ActBlue page for most e-mail appeals.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Elizabeth is all over (3.00 / 1)

She seems to hit a lot of blogs and really keep in touch even on some really small ones.


by okamichan13 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elizabeth is all over (3.00 / 2)

Elizabeth Edwards showed up on MYDD once to set a diarist straight about here husband.

All I remember thinking was wow, she used her own name.  Nonpartisan must have really struck a nerve.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, outreach and engagement help (3.00 / 2)

but ideas are more important. Want to win over the netroots and grassroots? Here's a thought: run a progressive campaign.


by david mizner on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:56:36 PM EST

Re: Yes, outreach and engagement help (3.00 / 1)

And here I thought Edwards was already doing that.


by kilb on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I meant (3.00 / 3)


by david mizner on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Numbers (3.00 / 1)


The Obama number represent ALL contributors - not just online donations?  I didn't know that.

That makes Edwards' numbers look much more competitive that they initially appeared.


Florida Netroots
by meowmissy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 03:59:10 PM EST

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)

In my mind there's nothing wrong with lumping all contributions together.  I'm a regular on several blogs, but donated via a check in the mail.

Along similar lines, I genuinely don't get the implication of the top post that donating to a candidate via ActBlue is somehow superior to donating via the candidate's website.  What's up with that?  (I can understand the transparency benefit if 100% of donations were via ActBlue, but that's never going to happen, so there will always be some unknown other quantidy that'll get added in.)


Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard
by Go Vegetarian on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)

I laid it out a little more extensively further downthread.

By creating a common infrastructure it reduces the start up costs for candidates, particularly those downticket.

ActBlue doesn't charge to process credit card transactions, candidate running their own fundraising ops do have to pay a processing free.  Also they do the work of programming the page to process applications.

So let's say it would cost a campaign $1,000 to set up a webpage that has the form to process credit card donations.  And they have to pay a staffer $200 week to go through the forms and report to the FEC, and the credit card company takes maybe 2 cents of every dollar.  

It adds up quick, and makes it impossible for small campaigns to pull off.  With ActBlue, it's all done for the campaign, they get the whole donation, and put out no money to do it.  ActBlue lives off free will tips from donors, and they assume the cost of setting up the website, and the processing fee with credit card companies.

This is an infrastructure that isn't going to have to be torn down, and built up every cycle.  It helps lower level candidates raise online.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)

Look we know you hate Obama but it is pointless to make stuff up just to prove your point.

This from ActBlue's FAQ:

What about credit card fees?

The recipient candidates bear the cost of the credit card processing fees, just as if you gave on the candidate's (or committee's) own web site. The processing fees pay for our access to the credit card network and the operation and ongoing development of our fundraising infrastructure. These services are provided to ActBlue by Auburn Quad.

The processing fee is currently 3.15% for contributions made through single-recipient fundraising pages and 3.75% for contributions made through multiple-recipient fundraising pages. As our volume increases, we expect these rates to fall to 2.9% and 3.5% respectively. (These rates are for Visa/MC -- as is usually the case, Discover and AmEx cost a bit more.)


by aiko on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)

I stand corrected on the issue of who pays for the processing fee, nonethless, as the FAQ states you get better rates with a higer volume.  As well creating the infrastructure is not cheap.

KT had said something that led me to believe that ActBlue carried at least a portion of the processing fee.  In this I was wrong.  Nonetheless, it's a good idea, and bashing ActBlue will make you few friends here.  

Ad hominen attacks are also in general looked down upon, and can be the basis for being banned. I've emailed Stoller about yourself and EdwardsObama2008 since it's clear to me that you don't understand the importance of playing well with others.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:34:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)

You are a funny man with a funny attitude.

I haven't attacked anyone.  And I have nothing against ActBlue except to try and understand why it is being used as a tool to attack my democratic candidate of choice.

I also think that it is a little early in the cycle to become an ALL EDWARDS site.


by aiko on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:53:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (3.00 / 0)

Just wanted to step in (not to your other discussion) but the point about ActBlue. aiko is right in pointing out the FAQ answer. ActBlue itself is not taking out extra percentage points to fund our operation other than paying for the base credit card processing fees that are assessed no matter what (that doesn't change in any industry, be it political donations or shopping at the grocery market). But we do keep that low and ask instead for the tips that people are generous to add on top of their donation instead of eating it out without a choice.
by KTatActBlue on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Numbers (none / 0)


I didn't say there was anything wrong with lumping the numbers altogether - just that I didn't know that's how he was keeping the tally.
Florida Netroots
by meowmissy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$35 million for Obama? (none / 0)

Good god. That might be Clinton territory, had she not pressed her donor base so hard as to probably come in a bit higher than that.

If Obama really does report $35 million...wow. And I'll bet Edwards has done alright for himself as well.


by mihan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:00:35 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Wait..35 Million dollars in Q1?!?  Wasn't HRC projected to raise 25 million?  

If that's true, Obama's a political juggernaut.


by megaplayboy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:01:52 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Yeah, 35M would be absurdly high... I would be absolutely shocked. Per the Hotline's final predictions:

Sen. Hillary Clinton will raise between $23M and $30M.

Sen. John McCain will raise between $18M and $22M.

Sen. Barack Obama will raise between $18M and $24M.

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney will raise between $19M and $21M. ** Romney is not raising general election money yet.

Ex-Sen. John Edwards will raise between $13M and $17M.

Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani will raise between $12M and $15M.

These figures do not include transfers from other accounts or from the final quarter of '06.


TheDailyBackground.com
by remove on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

And there is this:

The early deployment of Mr. Clinton highlights the continuing concerns in the Clinton camp about the strength of Mr. Obama's candidacy and his fund-raising prowess. The Clinton camp has tried to stop any drift of Democratic donors to the Obama camp, since the campaign finance reporting period ending tonight is seen as a huge test of the campaigns' money-raising abilities as they gird for a crush of early primaries.

One donor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said the Clintons would not like his speaking openly, said the Clinton campaign had been trying to lower fund-raising expectations because of a concern about a surge by Mr. Obama, who has shown broad appeal among black, female and young Democrats and has captured some big-money donors like Orin Kramer, a former Clinton supporter.

The Clintons thought the nomination would most likely be theirs, barring some major disaster, and they are having to work harder and earlier for the nomination than either Clinton expected," said the donor, who said he had talked about Mr. Obama with Mr. Clinton. "This was not how things were supposed to go, and they are obsessed with beating Barack in fund-raising."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/us/pol itics/31clinton.html?ref=politics


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:52:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the Hillary inevitability meme dies tomorrow (3.00 / 4)

If Obama comes close to her and Edwards is in a strong third-place position, it will show that many thousands of Democrats, big and small donors alike, do not want Hillary to be the nominee.

It's almost guaranteed that the Obama and Edwards fundraising amounts combined will exceed what Clinton brings in.

Expect to see some of the big donors who have supported Clinton chipping in their $2,300 to either Obama or Edwards once they figure out that Hillary is NOT inevitable. A lot of these big money people are not too ideological; they want to be on the winning team so they will have pull with the next president.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Who the heck is giving Mitt Romney THAT MUCH MONEY?


by rikyrah on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

So toss them ten buck for a thank you, and drop a tip in the ActBlue tip jar for thanks there too.


by mrobinsong on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:06:51 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

http://www.actblue.com/


by mrobinsong on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Be careful with the $35M projection.  It probably consists of both primary and General, in which case Hillary may have as much as $50 Million and Edwards $20 Million


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:12:12 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

If you recall, Senator Obama only relatively recently declared that he would raise general election money.  For much of the quarter, he was only raising primary money.  Whatever his final number is, it will certainly be a higher % of primary funds than Clinton and likely Edwards as well (I can't remember off the top of my head when he decided to opt out).


by LPMandrake on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

He recently announced that he would give back the General Election money if the Republican nominee agreed to spending limits, but he joined Clinton and Edwards in raising for both elections almost immediately.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

VP, could you email me at the link at the bottom, right, of my Michigan for Edwards blog?  Thanks.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

those numbers are very impressive (3.00 / 2)

For Edwards to double the number of contributors in the final days is incredible.

I knew Obama was vacuuming up the Hollywood money, but wow, if he really does bring in $35 million, that's astonishing.

This solidifies my belief that the nomination will come down to Obama v. Edwards. The voters/activists who want a candidate more progressive than Hillary will win the day.

Clinton may well raise $50 million, but I don't know many undecideds considering her. The undecideds seem to be mainly considering Edwards, Obama or Richardson.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:14:12 PM EST

Maybe, but (none / 0)

I'm worried Edwards and Obama will divide up the anti-Hillary vote, frankly. Hopefully one will drop out


by delmoi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

better for them to push Hillary into third (3.00 / 4)

so that Obama and Edwards are the last two standing.

If one of them drops out before the primaries, Hillary will be in contention longer.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe, but (3.00 / 1)

The system in Iowa with viability is likely to mitigate the effect there, and afterwards people voting specifically anti-Hillary (which I don't think is that great a proportion of the primary electorate) will naturally drift towards whichever one is doing better.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

30% of Obama is anti-Hillary (3.00 / 1)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20 07/03/parsing_the_polls_first_impres.htm l#more

"A whopping 30 percent of Obama backers mentioned their distaste for Clinton as the main reason for their decision to support the Illinois senator."

USA Today/Gallup poll


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't worry. (none / 0)

I'm not African-American, but so far as I can tell most of them has Clinton and Obama as their top 2 choices, and they're a very large share of the primary electorate.  In general, Clinton comes in at #2 as often as Obama or Edwards among Obama/Edwards supporters.  The "anti-Hillary" vote seems mostly contined to the blogosphere at this point, and there aren't all that many of us.

(For the record, Obama is my #1 choice, Edwards my #2.)


Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard
by Go Vegetarian on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 4)

DLC, establishment, conservative, pro-war, Lieberman-lite=Clinton
Civil rights activist idealist = Obama
Populist progressive = Edwards

Gets married a lot = Giuliani, McCain
Well groomed = Romney


by mrobinsong on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:26:29 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Damn, that is one of the best descriptions of the candidates I have seen in a LONG time.


by JewishJake on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

CORRECTION:

Universal Activist Who Had It Right On Iraq The Fisrt Time = Obama


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

If he had it right, then why did he vote against Kerry Feingold with Clinton in 2006?

Started off right, and then turned wrong.


by littafi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (1.00 / 1)

DLC, establishment, conservative, pro-war, Lieberman-lite = Clinton, Richardson

Gets married a lot = Giuliani, McCain, Gingerich
Bad Actor = Thompson


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson is not pro-war (3.00 / 1)

He explicitly supports the withdrawal timeline. Don't stoop to lying about candidates.


by OfficeOfLife on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson is not pro-war (none / 0)

I know, but the rest is absolutely true about Rihcardson.  He's probably a bigger neoliberal than the Clintons.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, he isn't (3.00 / 1)

His record in New Mexico speaks for itself. Spending more on public schools, alternative energy development, and expanding health care to poor New Mexicans is far from "neo-liberalism".


by OfficeOfLife on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

I'm and Edwards person, but Richardson is my second choice.

His position on NAFTA and free trade is something that I don't like, but I like that he's taken a strong position on renewable energy.

I uprated Jallen above, because I didn't think he deserved a 1.  It was a wrong about Richardson's war position but not maliciously so.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Perhaps I shouldn't have grouped Richardson in on something someone else had made, but I didn't want to change it too much, and felt he should be with Hillary.  Perhaps this would be better:
DLC, establishment, conservative, pro-war, Lieberman-lite = Clinton,
DLC, establishment, conservative, neoliberal = Richardson
"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Just let it go, bud.

It's for the better.

There are far worse candidates than Richardson.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Not among the Democrats.  He's better than any Republican, though.  And I won't stop trying to inform Dems about Richardson's ideology.  He isn't a mainstream Democrat.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Obama's by far worse than Richardson IMO.

With Richardson you know what you're getting.

Obama's connections to Wall Street and the Rubinites haven't been out in the open, and then thos stuff from the Hill.  Backchanelling campaign cash from lobbyists through their wives? Highly unethical.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

If Edwards were to drop out, who would you support?


by aiko on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Richardson or Dodd.

Truth be told I'd probably vote in protest for Kucinich like I did in 2004.  I'm in Indiana, and we don't vote until May.

I don't think that Edwards will drop out though.  I don't think his wife would let him.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:48:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Who would I back if Edwards dropped out?

Obama or Richardson.  Or Gore if he got in.  But I don't think it's at all likely he'd drop out.


by DaveMB on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Hell yes he is.  He is an unabashed free-trader, with no regrets over NAFTA.  He supports Bush's guest worker program, and generally takes a pro-business attitude.  Here is part of a diary I did fairly recently:

"Record: Bill supports a balanced budget amendment, and has insisted on "conservative" spending policies, and has supported the idea of a small, effective government.  Not only supports higher pay for teachers, but substantially increased the pay of teachers in New Mexico.  He supported school vouchers first, then changed his position when he ran for governor, and supports charter schools.  He has a record for conservation and alternative energy.  Supports free trade, said NAFTA was critically important to both the US and Mexico.  On health care he supports cutting costs and expanding access to affordable health care.  A decade ago he was for a harsher immigration policy, including not giving citizenship to the children of immigrants, and now supports earned legalization, and a guest worker program.  He supports tax cuts, particularly to the income tax, and supports a "Taxpayer Bill of Rights".
"We need to work with business, that's where the jobs are created after all, instead of engaging in ideological warfare, and we need the right kind of tax incentives, not just tax cuts for the wealthy and income transfers from the middle class to big corporations."

History: Bill Richardson was born in 1947 to an American father, who worked for Citibank in Mexico City, and a Mexican mother.  He was sent to Massachusetts to attend a prep school when he was 13, and he studied French and political science at Tufts, and went on to get a masters from Tufts.  He moved to New Mexico in 1978, unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1980, then successfully ran in a newly created district in 1982, and served in Congress until 1997.  He focused on foreign policy issues and fashioned himself as a diplomat, engaging in diplomacy with Saddam's Iraq, Sudan, and North Korea while he was in Congress.  In 1997 he was appointed to be the US Ambassador to the UN, and in 1998, Secretary of Energy until the end of the Clinton Administration.

Judgemnt: Richardson is clearly a liberal, and perhaps not even a "modern" liberal, but a more traditional one, or even a neoliberal."


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, he isn't (none / 0)

Sounds like a great record to me. That's pretty much where I am ideologically.

The only negative there is NAFTA. It's a smudge on his slate, but every candidate has a few of those. Edwards was a free trader before he was against it.

I also support Richardson's tax cut decisions. Tax cuts are not always bad. The reflexive "taxes should always be high" position of many liberals is what keeps me calling myself a moderate. In his case, New Mexico was a poverty-stricken state that was bleeding jobs. Companies refused to set up shop there. Other states in the region had far more favorable tax rates and got all the good high-tech business. Job creation should be issue #1 with any Governor, and Richardson did all the right things. He's got my vote for sure.


by OfficeOfLife on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Love Edwards Jerome.  My concern is that you're conflating netroots with grassroots.  It appears that Obama is doing his own thing which doesn't assuage some's netroots sensibilities.  Understandable, we are activists and egoists who do not want to be slighted.  Plus Obama appears to be a victim of his own success.  I'm certain there are not enough hours in the day to attend to this "runaway train".  Rather than take a hard and fast position at this stage, let's exult in both Edwards and Obama's accomplishments.

Please at this premature stage, do not turn this sight into MyDEdwards.  Also, from my readings, it seems at this point in time, Obama's chances at winning the general election warrant support.

In conclusion, I admire and respect John Edwards:  he was my 2nd after Clark.  Let's not jump on any bandwagon that disavows facts.


by pamelabrown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:29:33 PM EST

yes, netroots and grassroots are different (3.00 / 4)

When I talk to Democrats in Iowa who are supporting Obama, they comment on liking the way he speaks, or how exciting he is, or how he is a fresh face, or how he makes them feel proud to be an American (this was a direct quote from a friend I volunteered with on the Kerry campaign).

Unlike the netroots, the grassroots supporters of Obama do not seem to focus as much on his 2002 opposition to the Iraq War.

There is a Reaganesque quality to Obama's support in the grassroots, with people attracted to his personality and rhetoric, without being able to articulate why they like his policy positions better than those of the other candidates.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, netroots and grassroots are different (3.00 / 3)

I completely agree (though my chatter has come from circles outside of Iowa) with these impressions of Obama. Which is why I think come debate time, or when the electorate actually begins making nuanced observations outside of general impressions, Obama may tank. Not that he will necessarily tank--he might surprise me and articulate an agenda that is distinct from Hil's & John's--but that his policy solutions won't seem to glimmer as much as his current image.


by AZJustice on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamas Contributions (none / 0)

Um....

Obamas contributions listed are not ALL the contributions for the entire campaign thus far. They are the contributions from that one particular fund drive. I refuse to tell you how I know this for a fact, but I just had to point that out.

Thank you.

There's a difference between rumor and fact. I'm in no way trying to show disrespect. I just wanted to point out the truth. Please don't get mad at me.

Have a nice weekend everyone.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 04:51:48 PM EST

re: Obamas Contributions (none / 0)

While we're being particular, the current "fund drive" began with starting numbers around 68,000 (with the goal of 75k, now almost 82k) contributors.  So, by definition they can't be just from "this fund drive".  That doesn't mean you're not right that they're not all the contributors for the whole campaign.


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, yes. I'm sure it was. (none / 0)

When you first saw it.

I'm telling you , and I can care less whether anyone believes me or not, it started at ZERO. But, it's going to be so fun watching how surprised people are when it all get's laid on the table.

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, yes. I'm sure it was. (none / 0)


I think the issue is not that they're a total of all the contributions made to the campaign, but whether the numbers are just online donations or a combination of online and off-line donations.
Florida Netroots
by meowmissy on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, yes. I'm sure it was. (none / 0)

No, the 75,000 means 75,000 total so far, not 75,000 since they started this drive.  David Plouffe's last email says:

The 75,000th person who decided to own a piece of this campaign did it with just $5.
It happened late last night, as we hit our goal of 75,000 people donating to the campaign more than two full days in advance of the March 31st quarterly reporting deadline.

That doesn't say "75,000th person since x," it says he was the 75,000 person to donate to the campaign.


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, yes. I'm sure it was. (none / 0)

Royt,

That's what it means?

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, yes. I'm sure it was. (none / 0)

In point of fact, that means the 75,000th  person since Plouffe started writing that email!

Sheesh. I gotta explain everything?


by BingoL on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

$35 million?! What an implausibly explosive rumor. I hope an Edwards staffer wasn't the source of that rumor... it would be a shame for Obama to fail absurd expectations others had set for him.


by jforshaw on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:02:52 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

Why even report that $35m rumor, especially without a source?  That is almost certainly just another campaign's attempts to drive up the Obama expectations.


by LPMandrake on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:37:50 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

I would hate to see Jerome or Cris another Edwards supporter say Obama came up "short of expectations because he doesn't meet this 35 mil rumor that was put up here, maybe they do just have insider info that they want to share with us first, will give benifet of the doubt!


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama numbers? (none / 0)

Does anyone have a record of what Obama's #s were (donors and contributions) at some set point after they announced this drive?  I'd like to do an actual comparison with Edwards's ActBlue numbers (of which I have a record).

Thanks,
Asa


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:38:38 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

Edwards raised $3,065,439 at 6:15 eastern time. Cool. In this case. That's Hot!


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:13:34 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Can I ask you something?

What would it mean , in your opinion, if Obama raised more money with less donors? I'm just curious. I want a before the cash announcement and an after.

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

That he's got richer donors?


by adamterando on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

LOL.

Okay.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why not make the link clickable? (2.00 / 1)

I'd like to donate, but since you didn't make that graphic a hyper link, I'm not going to.

I'll probably donate sometime before the primaries, though.


by delmoi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:30:27 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

I agree with the earlier posts - if Obama really has raised $35 million, even if it is a combined primary and general total, I would be completely shocked - it would radically change the dynamics of the race given that figure is probably at the upper end of what HRC is likely to raise. Not to sound hyperbolic, but outraising or pulling even with HRC could be the beginning of the end of her candidacy - and I say that as someone who is at least somewhat favorable to her.

I agree it is much more likely therefore that this rumor (which I have not seen elsewhere) originated with another campaign trying to set a ludicrously high bar for Obama to reach.


by PeterR on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:31:14 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

BriNY (i think that is his handle) from kos said that wealthy black NYC donors were being asked to date their checks April 1.


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's the logic there? (none / 0)

I'm sorry, I don't understand why they would encourage any donors to date checks April 1.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's the logic there? (none / 0)

I see you caught that too. It's pure comedy tonight.

"Rumor Has It"
"I Heard"
"I Spoke To So In So"
"Some People In A State Told Me"
"Black Folks Feel..."

It reminds me of November of 2006 all over again.

Pass the popcorn.

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's the logic there? (none / 0)

Because they are suggesting that Obama has more than he needs this quarter....


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's the logic there? (3.00 / 0)

... and wants to start the next quarter off strong.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Whatever Hillary announces, we'll have to subtract the 11 Million that she swindled out of New Yorkers when she pretended she was just running for the Senate.

Also, take away another two or three from Bill's contributions as well.

Then, we shall have an accurate number.

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

edwards has saturated my inbox with pleas.

I just kicked in $50 to him and a 10% tip to ActBlue...the latter may be more important than the former.  Our MoveOn and Operation Democracy work is being done in the awarenesss that we are just begining to learn how to organize and its all toward being highly effective by 08.


by greensmile on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:32:02 PM EST

Thanks! (3.00 / 3)

We appreciate it, from you and everyone else that has been leaving them this week!
by KTatActBlue on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks! (3.00 / 1)

Do you have any info on what the average tip is on a donation?

Do people opt for the 10%, or something else?


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

I also donated $50 plus a tip.


by workingclassanna on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

"goes beyond talking about a movement to embracing the actual movement"

I am not sure what this means.  


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 06:57:15 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

I didn't either. I chuckled a few times at the "attempt" to fill this balloon up with as much air as possible. But, I love John too so I won't diss nobody.

;p


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 5)

I am not sure what this means.

Edwards is directing his donors to the ActBlue page.

I'm a small donor, I only gave $5.... but, I made sure to leave another $1 as a tip for ActBlue.

Assuming that there's even a 1% tipping rate on the over $2 Million that have been donated to Edwards, that means ActBlue took in $20,000 from this.  At the standard 15%, which I think most people think of  as the normal tip, ActBlue would have taken over $300,000.  

This helps maintain an online donation infrastructure that reaches down all the way to state legislative races.  And without ActBlue, it's highly unlikely that those candidates would have the opportunity to fundraise online.  

And $100 for a state rep candidate is larger as a proportion of the money they need to raise than maxing out at $4200 for a presidential candidate.

The candidate that embraces ActBlue as a consequence serves the party as well as serving themself.  The candidate that rejects ActBlue jsut serves themself.

We need partybuilders, not self centered candidates who leave no legacy for the party.

The Republicans have been successfull because they've built a party organization that is united around core values.  Those values may be insipid, but they motivate their base nonetheless.

If we want to fight back we need a candidate who will challenge the status quo, not talk about the beauty of bipartisanship.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

So by using ActBlue you are helping other progressives fundraise? You are building a progressive movement?

But if you don't use actblue then you are dissing the progressive movement? Is that what you and Jerome are saying?

'not embracing the netroots movement' = not using actblue?

Can you be a progressive and participate in a movement without ActBlue?

Finally--isn't the netroots movement more than actblue?  Maybe even a whole lot more.


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

So by using ActBlue you are helping other progressives fundraise? You are building a progressive movement?

Yes, by directing their donors to ActBlue candidates are setting up a fundraising infrastructure independent of any one campaign, that will continue to exist cycle to cycle.  Without ActBlue campaigns are forced to build up and tear down expensive campaign fundraising infrastructure each cycle.  

Suppose that it requires a full time staffer to maintain the fundraising appratus, and process all the donations.  The time taken to comply with FEC reporting makes going after small donors cost uncompetitive.  ActBlue facilitates that for campaigns, and free staff and resources who would have to be used for fundraising to go into the field, i.e. to have actual contact with voters.

For small campaigns like state representatives, it may only be possible to fund one staffer.  With ActBlue that staffer can be organizing volunteers for canvassing instead of having to fundraise.

Can you be a progressive and participate in a movement without ActBlue?

Finally--isn't the netroots movement more than actblue?  Maybe even a whole lot more.

Look, Obama can do what he pleases, but two questions.

What if anything, does mantaining a seperate fundraising operation do to help candidates down ticket?  

And....

Will Obama's fundraising operation be kept intact into the 2010 cycle?

John Edwards is serving the party by directing his donors to ActBlue.

Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are serving themselves by not embracing ActBlue.

It should be pointed out that John Edwards while by far more effective in raising funds on ActBlue, is not entirely alone.

Bill Richardson's campaign has also embraced ActBlue.

Show me the way that Obama serves the party by not using ActBlue, and then your lamentations may have some meaning.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

My Lord.

I wasn't wanting to say this but if it's okay for Edwards fanatics to continue dogging Obama, then I guess I can too.

Wanna know why Edwards is my second choice?

I have doubts about him. Serious doubts. I am suspicious of his reason for the op-ed apology. I am unable to convince myself that he did not only apologize because he was running for president and "learned" from the last election that he has to appeal to the anti-war base first. Then I am a little confused and concerned that he doesn't appear to be living by his two Americas . He has , in the past , belittled others who live in the First America , yet he moved right next door. Who the hell needs twenty bedrooms anyway?I am concerned that he , like Hillary, is running his campaign based on old campaign messages. Hillary running on Bill Clinton and Edwards running on Edwards 2004. Things have changed since then and I'd like to hear a modified speech that demonstrates he gets that. It's easy to dog Obama for not having ready made plans and compare him to someone who has a shelf full of old speeches and ideals that he's already tested out and knows they work. If Edwards supporters want to be respected they are going to have to start showing some.  

I continue to see many post putting Hillary and Obama in the same category as if they have so much in common when the truth is Edwards and Hillary has more in common with each other than Barack Obama ever will have and we all know this but for some reason, because they are both on top, we all just let these false allegations fly. Well, I obviously am not buying it and I can tell you right now, the way Edwards supporters are talking and attacking Barak Obama, if there were another candidate that I thought was as worthy as John Edwards to be Obamas running mate, I would be tempted to support him because I don't like the fact that I am seeing to much dishonesty with regards to Edwards and it's making me reevaluate him and his record. Not only does it reaffirm I made the right choice in choosing Obama , but it makes me question my own judgement of having Edwards as second.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Want to know why Barack Obama is not even my second choice?

Because his fundraisers are apparently ethically challenged.  Maybe this is the reason he doesn't want to work with ActBlue is because his campaign is soliciting donations from lobbyist's wives at the same time they take a no K Street money stance.

In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."

This stinks of Tom Delay and ARMPAC. If Obama wants to take K Street money, let it be in the light of day.

The last thing we need in 2008 is a presidential candidate who is able to be painted as corrupt like the GOP.  They want to capitalize on the belief that Democrats are just as shady as them.  We don't need to feed that.

Not to mention, that the way in which the money was solicited, so that the funds would come from one person, but be in the name of another is a prohibited donation under FEC regs.  Obama's campaign may have broken the law by actively requesting these donations.  You can't launder you campaign donations, these things have to occur in the light of day.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

You can make up whatever you want to about Barack Obama. Fox News beat you to it so you are not the first. I could argue that most of Edwards cash come from Lawyer Pals but I would be resorting to the same tactic you're using.

Tell ya what. I'll just share with you the truth. How about that? The truth.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/h acwebcast/


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

I'm not the one making the accusation.  It's K-Street folks, presumably aligned with Clinton, that say they were approached by the campaign for to channel money through their wifes to Obama.  That is highly unethical if not illegal.  

I linked to The Hill, you want to make allegations that people are making things up, point your hostility towards them.  I'm only repeating what was reported.

And as for the conflation of lawyers and lobbyists, Edwards never said he wouldn't take money from lawyers.  It's the coverup not the crime the makes Obama's fundraising from K-Street so damning.

You can stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend that this wasn't reported in a major newpapers, but that doesn't make it so.

Sorry, your guy looks like a sellout when he says one thing and does another.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

You're only stating what you hear? Okay, so I guess you too believe that Obama was raised as a radical Muslim because that's what you heard? You think the Hill is a reputable source of News?

Are you a Democrat or a little baby bird sitting there with your mouth opened waiting to take in every bit of regurgitated crap that the Media pulls out of the ass of a dead carcass?

You know better than to believe the MSM, but you want to believe this one because it's against Obama. Go ahead and cherry pick the bullshet you want to believe . I honestly don't believe that even you are buying into the mess you are repeating from the "Media" but you want to attack Obama so bad you will embrace a lie and post it as if you honestly believe it. You and I know deep down that's a damn lie. Just like it's a lie that Edwards is using his wife's illness to win sympathy votes. But unlike you, I am not so hard up for my candidate that I would sit here and spread a bold faced lie in an effort to attack someone else just because I can't defend something that my own candidate is doing.

Obama doesn't take money from Lobbyists. Period.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

So here we have the anti-Obama message that we should expect to see in politico and drudge over the next week.  

And remember you saw it here first on MYDD!!!!


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll (none / 0)

Try swallowing EVERYTHING from the MSM and the right wing.  I think you let a littl drip onto your chin this time.

Twenty bedrooms?  You're an idiot.


by DrFrankLives on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll (none / 0)

I think he may be the reincarnation of Brion Lutz. long time Obama troll, who I think finally got banned.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll (1.00 / 1)

Oh BTW. I'm a female and I was never BANNED from here. Thank you very much.

This is also not a W Boys Only Frat Blog. Not everyone is male. How very sexist of you.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll (none / 0)

You are giving Obama supporters a bad rep.  Chill out girlfriend.


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wondered what happened to that guy (none / 0)

Haven't seen Francislholland much lately either. Did he get banned too?


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wondered what happened to that guy (none / 0)

Yes, Chris Bowers banned him for bringing his DKos issues here, and I don't miss him at all.  He was posting on Blue Mass Group for a while and had one particularly offensive diary deleted -- I haven't seen him there lately either.


by DaveMB on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wondered what happened to that guy (none / 0)

Good riddance.

The troll population looks to have picked up by at least one today.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

I really am just trying to understand this better.  I took a close look at the website as well.  I have no idea why Obama isn't using ActBlue and we should ask him.

Beside Edwards, who looks like he embraces the tool 100%, no other pres. candidate is doing what Edwards is doing.  That makes Edwards unique and helps to explain why he is the primary online choice.

ActBlue seems like a terrific tool for local candidates to capitalize on national support but since 2008 is the first presidential campaign since its creation shouldn't folks give it chance to catch on.  I am startled by the size of the resentment over this issue.

Frankly for me fundraising is not at all what the netroots are about.  It is one element but it is not the central component. I am not sure I understand why some members of the netroots are so insulted at this slight.

I come here for message, for hope, for strategy, for guidance and for information.  Money is important but it is secondary (for me).


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Ignore the presidential raise.  

This is a huge infusion of cash into a instiution that will free up a lot of staffer hours and resources in lower level races.  That's why it should be supported.

It was around in 2004.  It was launched in June of that year.

High profile candidate have no reason to not support this unless they have a problem with partybuilding.

And as for the netroots being about more than fundraising, that's true of course.  But it's not what we are having a discussion about right now.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

OK, I agree that the kind of money that Obama and HRC are projected to bring in this quarter would have a tremendous effect (all good) on low level races. I understand and I agree.

But the resentment of Obama is inappropriate and unfortunate.  

Watch this video.

This kind of activity should be celebrated on MYDD instead of ignored. It embodies what the netroots stands for. (or so i thought):

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/h acwebcast/


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

We'll have to agree to disagree about the appropriateness of Obama's actions.

I am a Democrat, and I want my candidate to support that by helping build the party.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

I have no idea why Obama isn't using ActBlue and we should ask him.

I can think of two reasons, one minor, one major, why Clinton/Obama are building their own donor lists without using ActBlue.

[1] With respect to using ActBlue to piggyback other candidates: From the ActBlue FAQ -- multi-candidate pages have higher processing costs: 1/2% of the contribution.

It's not that much money, but it is unclear to me why the CC companies should get an extra 1/2% in processing fees per donation just because a web page has multiple candidates on it.

If I'm a senator & presidential candidate and raise, say 10 million online over the primary season, why give away $50K when that's 10 $5000 donations my warchest can make directly to other senatorial campaigns?

[2] The donor lists are worth $$$ to other Democratic campaigns. Read the fine print in the privacy policies:

We may also make personal information available to organizations with similar political viewpoints and objectives, in furtherance of our own political objectives. (Obama)

When you make a contribution to us, we may also exchange your contributor information with successor organizations and other like-minded Democratic candidates and organizations, and they may solicit you (see below for additional information regarding your contributor information). However, we will not sell or exchange your credit card information to any other third party under any circumstances. (Clinton)

Given that the respective campaigns have donor lists that largely don't intersect with ActBlue or  each other, there's gold in those lists. Whether it's for $$ or the old "I've got something you want," the info collected has value.


by dblhelix on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Who owns the donor info when you go thru ActBlue? Both actblue and campaign? One or other?  And how is that info given to the candidates?  I would want my own computerized list.  Do they get all contributor info along with the money when we donate to ActBlue?


by aiko on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

Who owns the donor info when you go thru ActBlue? Both actblue and campaign?

From the FAQ:

ActBlue reports your name, address, employer, and occupation to campaigns you support, but does not share your phone number and email address with the campaigns unless you request that we do so when you contribute.

and from AB Privacy Policy:

we will not use your personal information nor release it to any other party without your permission, unless we believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our terms of use, or as otherwise required by law.

I would want my own computerized list.

Def.


by dblhelix on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

Of course you can. But if a candidate uses ActBlue, it's explicitly linking the financing of his or her campaign with the financing of the netroots.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

The Progressive Patriots Fund is the tool I use for that because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the money is going to real PROGRESSIVES. I don't trust anyone else.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he just passed 26,000 donors on ActBlue (3.00 / 2)

Still needs another $115K or so to get to $2.5 million through ActBlue (the total raised online by Edwards is already over $3 million).


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:04:39 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 3)

As an Obama guy it's great to see both of them doing so well in the netroots, I hope if and when it becomes clear that only one of them will stop Hillary and save the party we unite behing the other and kick GOP ass in the general.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:08:14 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

We will..... but just like in Foot Ball , you don't root for the other team in the Play Offs. You save it till after you find out whos going to the Superbowl.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 2)

I just noticed that Edwards has picked up some more endorsements in the last few days.
former Congressman Ken Lucas (KY-04)

And from Minnesota:
Congressman Jim Oberstar

State Senators
Sen. Thomas Bakk
Sen. Steve Murphy
Sen. Ann Rest

State Representatives
House Majority Leader Tony Sertich
Rep. Jim Davnie
Rep. Alice Hausman
Rep. Thomas Huntley
Rep. Sheldon Johnson
Rep. John Lesch
Rep. Erin Murphy
Rep. Aaron Petersonv
Rep. Marsha Swailsv
Rep. Ryan Winkler

Former State Senator
Becky Lourey

Former State Representative
Andrew Dawkins

Former Duluth AFL-CIO Presidents
Randy Asunma
Mary Rosenthal
George Sundstrom

Community Leaders
Ted Mondale, former Chair of the Metropolitan Council
Scott Benson, Minneapolis City Council member
Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner
Retired Judge Gerald Heaney
Alan Netland
Laura Nevitt, Governor Howard Dean 2004 Minnesota State Director
Erik Peterson

I was going to type that but I decided to copy and paste.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:12:33 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

Honestly,

The former AFL-CIO presidents are probably the most important here.  I'll be very interested to see if the Edwards campaign starts to pick up lots of labor based endorsements like this.  That could be a cue that something very important is happenening.  These labor endorsements come from the ground up.  The unions listen to what their members have to say.

Unite-Here, Teamsters, UAW, USW, Edwards got good connections with all the above.  I imagine that Unite-Here will be the first to endorse though.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Long term funding (3.00 / 2)

I noticed the uptick in donations and supporters for Edwards and Obama and its pretty amazing.

But to me the real test is 2nd quarter that will answer more questions for all the candidates. How many donors are tapped out, how many have given the max, how many get turned off by aggressive campaigns asking for money, etc. Does more money now mean less money later? And can candidates like Dodd, Richardson, Biden stay in? I would bet by Jan 08 we are going to see a smaller field.

That will be very interesting. As an Edwards supporter I hope he does well, at least close to whoever is #2. I dont think he can catch Obama or Hillary in the money game for this quarter. Obama has just been too hot (although he seems to be cooling) and Hillary, well, she is Hillary. Her connections and support are immense. The huge money all three will probably raise will I think put some reality into thinking about whether Gore or Clark can come in.

Big news will be if Obama can come close or pass Hillary and how close Edwards can be to both of them. This kind of money this early is a totally new thing.


by okamichan13 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:24:22 PM EST

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 0)

I'm really impressed by the openness of the Edwards team.

I find $35M really hard to believe for this first quarter. Especially without much in the way of a senate account transfer. Then again, when has a presidential candidate began his candidacy with a book atop the NY Times Best Seller list for months?

Anyway, I expect him to post in with $25M.


by blueflorida on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:30:56 PM EST

Did Obama (none / 0)

have anything in his senate campaign to transfer over?


by okamichan13 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Obama (none / 0)

$516, 553 COH as of 12/31/06 in Obama's Senate fund.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd love to donate. (3.00 / 2)

   I want to donate money to both the Obama and Edwards primary campaigns, but since I'm a student I don't have the cash.  I prefer to donate money to local races (state house, state senate...), where my donations are more appreciated.  Donate in my stead!


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:42:09 PM EST

Re: I'd love to donate. (3.00 / 4)

I'm a student too, but I pitched in $5 for John Edwards on ActBlue.

If you really want to help downticket candidates, throw $5 or $10 at ActBlue.  It will really help downticket races.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd love to donate. (3.00 / 3)

  Eh, I gave Edwards $5.  He needs it more than Obama, I think.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd love to donate. (3.00 / 1)

That's all it takes..

You left a good tip right :)

KT (atActBlues) needs a new pair of shoes, seriously the poor bastards been walking around barefoot.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd love to donate. (3.00 / 0)

Lol, I appreciate the concern but I've got 3 pairs of Sketchers and that's about it. I'd walk around barefoot more often but it's still pretty chilly up here in MA (not like it is in Texas!).
by KTatActBlue on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Totals just before 8:00 EDT (3.00 / 1)

ActBlue for JRE: $2,407,346
Total online for JRE:$3,131,545 (from the JRE main page)

Most of the recent money has been on ActBlue but the difference of the two numbers, the on-line money other than ActBlue, has also gone up by over $100K today.

I don't know how often the total number is being updated, but the ActBlue number goes up instantaneously on each contribution -- it's now over $2.41M.  I think there's a good chance of it hitting $2.5M tonight.


by DaveMB on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:55:27 PM EST

Re: Totals just before 8:00 EDT (3.00 / 4)

Edwards was in Indianapolis yesterday, and the Indy Star said the he raised $75,000 at that event.  It's hard to say whether that's included in the total.  My guess would be not yet.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$75K in Indy (3.00 / 1)

The story you linked to said that he raised $75K from 50 donors.  I doubt they gave online, and unless they did they would not show up in the totals I referred to above.  There's the $3M or so raised online, and there's the money raised the old-fashioned way, often by people maxing out at $2300 for the primary or $4600 for both the primary and general.  That's the number that will get the most media attention when the books close on it at midnight tonight.  (It has to be reported to the FEC by 15 April but I would guess it might leak earlier.)  That number for Edwards might be $20M, might be more -- the campaign has talked about exceeding $17M if I remember correctly.


by DaveMB on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 08:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $75K in Indy (3.00 / 3)

Another thing from the article.

Former IN Dem state chair Robin Winston has signed on as Edward's state chair.

Winston is quite possibly the best state chair the state party has had in recent memory.  He had a way of explaining things in short concise ways that communicate the neccesary info without being long winded.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $75K in Indy (3.00 / 1)

He served the same role in 2004.  I really like Winston and am exceptionally disappointed by the several who have followed him.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $75K in Indy (none / 0)

Are you an Indiana boy/girl?

Last thing I knew Doug Davidoff was a partner or something (they had the same office in downtown Indy) as Winston.

Davidoff is hands down the best media guy in the state.  Well worth it for any congressional candidate.  The earned media coverage he'll generate for you makes him worth his pay.  Nice guy, too.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $75K in Indy (none / 0)

I was thinking more Peter Manous and the others.  Is it embarassing that I don't know who the current Party Chair is?  I'm that disconnected from Hoosier Democratic politics.

Oh and yes, I'm a boy from Indiana.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $75K in Indy (none / 0)

I've been horribly lax in my role as a frontpager over at Blueindiana.net, but we do need diarists and diaries.  Good company, good times.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

just passed 27,000 donors on Act Blue (3.00 / 1)

Only about $30,000 more to get to $2.5 million raised for Edwards through Act Blue.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:33:08 PM EST

make that 28,000 donors on Act Blue (3.00 / 1)

A little before midnight central time, Edwards has raised over $2.5 million through Act Blue.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:51:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (3.00 / 1)

I gave money to Obama through his website. I gave money to Edwards through ActBlue. I am definitely interested in how the money shakes out this first quarter.


by rikyrah on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:11:54 PM EST

CONFIRMED ( It Was NOT ON-LINE ONLY ) (none / 0)

E-Mail Sent To Me! ( People Really Need To Tell The Truth)

I just came out of the conference room in our office, where our whole staff has joined the volunteers making calls to beat this midnight fundraising deadline. There's energy in the air --

we're getting close. I've been calling supporters from Michigan, my home state. A woman I spoke with last night put it very well (I'm paraphrasing here):

"All my life I've been hoping someone would just come out there and do something about what everyone can see needs to be fixed, things like, health care, poverty, global warming, all this stuff that's obvious but no one is doing anything about it. Now here's John Edwards, finally getting the nation to pay attention, finally saying it's time to do something! So yes, I'll donate, because I want the whole country to listen up, and this is my way of making that happen."

We all have different reasons we support this campaign. But whatever our different dreams for this country, we all face the same deadline at 11:59 PM tonight to make it happen. We're charging hard towards our new $3 million online goal, but we aren't there yet. If each us just put in a little bit more in the 7 hours we have left, I know we can make it.

There is no 'later' on this one. Tonight sets the course for the rest of the campaign, and this moment won't come again. Will you be the one who gets us across the finish line?

http://johnedwards.com/r/9200/429925/

What's my personal reason? It's simple really. I was raised to believe in the fight for economic and social justice. And there is no better leader in that struggle today than John Edwards.

I'm sure you have your own reason. In fact, after you contribute, hit 'reply' to this email and send me a note about what did it for you.

http://johnedwards.com/r/9202/429925/

I know thousands of you have already contributed, and you're why we're on the verge of success today. And if you haven't yet found the right time to give, well, your moment is here.

For all the million different reasons, I thank you.

David Bonior
Campaign Manager
John Edwards for President

P.S. - Remember, you have till 11:59 PM tonight in your local time zone to make your donation online and still beat the deadline.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:20:34 AM EST

Re: CONFIRMED ( It Was NOT ON-LINE ONLY ) (none / 0)

What are trying to say?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's responding to someone I guess (none / 0)

but I have no idea who or the reason. not sure what he is confirming


by okamichan13 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's responding to someone I guess (none / 0)

Egads, they do send e-mails! It's all a clever ploy!

What are we confirming again?


by Matt Wallace on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on fire (none / 0)

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7 w8 w9 w10 w11 w12 w13 w14 w15 w16 w17 w18 w19 w20 w21 w22 w23 w24 w25 w26 w27 w28 w29 w30 w31 w32 w33 w34 w35 w36 w37 w38 w39 w40 w41 w42 w43 w44 w45 w46 w47 w48 w49 w50 w51 w52 w53 w54 w55 w56 w57 w58 w59 w60 w61 w62 w63 w64 w65 w66 w67 w68 w69 w70 w71 w72 w73 w74 w75 w76 w77 w78 w79 w80 w81 w82 w83 w84 w85 w86 w87 w88 w89 w90 w91 w92 w93


by daroutin on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:21:39 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: