MyDD :: Obama: $25 Million

Obama: $25 Million

by Matt Stoller, Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:11:45 AM EST

Obama is claiming that it raised $25 million for the quarter, including $2 million for the general (with over 100,000 donors). He might have outraised Clinton in primary cash, and we'll know when she lays out how much she raised for the general versus the primary.

Update [2007-4-4 11:35:14 by Jerome Armstrong]:

Here's the latest on the 1Q fundraising numbers:

  
           1Q(internet) General  Senate  Available  COH      Donors

Clinton    $26M (4.2)   $6M      $10M    $30M                50,000
Obama      $25M (6.9)   $1.5M            $23.5M             100,000
Edwards    $14M (3.3)   $1M              $13M                40,000   
Dodd       $4M                   $5M     $9M        $7.5M
Richardson $6M                           $6M        $5M
Biden      $3M                           $1M

Tags: Barack Obama, 2008, President, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 106 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama: $25 Million (3.00 / 0)

Wow.

And on top of that, he's not even close to tapping out his donors.

by b1oody8romance7 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:14:27 AM EST

STUNNING (none / 0)

what's Hillary's argument for the presidency now?

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think I just heard (3.00 / 2)

Bill Clinton scream. Ha Ha.

Good for Obama.

And it's good for Edwards. He was starting to get a little too much attention. Back under the radar for a little bit.

by david mizner on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:18:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill's quadruple bypass (3.00 / 0)

may not hold

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I just heard (3.00 / 0)

yah it is good for edwards.. you know...that he raised what 11 million less than obama..

you guys have some twisted "logic" around here....

if edwards had raised 25 and obama 14 you'd be screaming to the four winds VICTORY IS OURS...

but since its not your guy its actually good news

not sure why YOU have to play politics on this site.. shouldn't you leave that up to the politicians?

by serge in dc on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I just heard (3.00 / 1)

I agree with them... Which ever of the big three can cost under the radar a bit until Fall while the other two tear each other up will have a good advantage if they aren't down too much. I wish Obama was there personally, its how he won in 2004 in the Senate Primary... similiar scenario.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah, I'm not a Republican (none / 0)

Money doesn't give me a hard on. Sorry.

Now if Obama decided to run a progressive campaign, then I'd take notice.

This is just cash.

Money can't buy you love or votes.

by david mizner on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:38:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nah, I'm not a Republican (3.00 / 1)

to say obama is not running a progressive campaign is just a lie.

you somehow ignore his track record and his current position on issues to claim he is not progressive.

I don't deny that edwards is progressive (despite some of his past votes) you shouldn't deny that Obama is.

by dpg220 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nah, I'm not a Republican (3.00 / 6)

The problem is that Obama's rhetorical positions tend to be a lot more centrist than his actual votes and policy positions. I'm sure it's intentional - it's always been clear that Obama is doing his best to be perceived as a candidate who is willing to reach out to his idealogical opponents in order to get things done.

The problem this runs into is that many progressives are not willing to accept even the language of compromise. It's ironic, given the "my way or the highway" philosophy of our common enemy, that we seem to exhibit the same behavioral patterns when we see someone who is on our side display a willingness to compromise.

Perhaps we feel that the only way we can counter an opposition that uses brute force to ensure idealogical unity and conformity is by becoming just as conformist?

by dopplex on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nah, I'm not a Republican (none / 0)

i could not agree more with your post. thank you.

by serge in dc on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nah, I'm not a Republican (none / 0)

Many political scientists tend to view the political spectrum as a circle than as a line... Therefore the farther left and farther right one is, the closer their tactics tend to become and both have a very my way or the highway mindset. I had a lot of neo-hippie friends when I was in college in the late 90's and early aughts... (I was a student for a long time) and the one thing about them I always found hypocritical was how they claimed to be extremely tolerant and openminded (and they were with minorities, sexuality, etc) yet were extremely intolerant of people who didn't fit their viewpoints. It was extremely hypocritical of them and sad to see.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:25:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nah, I'm not a Republican (none / 0)

Democrats were supposed to compromise with republicans after they won in 2006. So far it seems like partisan vote after another. I doubt there is much to compromise after his policies are written up as long as Democrats hold a strong majority.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's more than just rhetorical (none / 0)

Personally, I think the netroots' fetish for pugilism is a little silly.
If Obama spoke of unity and consensus and also offered a bold progressive agenda, that would be one thing, but he's only doing the former.

I didn't deny that Obama is a progressive. Maybe he is, and if he is, his campaign should show the courage of his convictions.

Sorry, but your campaign can't be considered progressive unless it tackles head-on what Jim Webb correctly identifies as the country's biggest domestic issue, its number one probelem, the gap between rich and poor. Also the gap between the very rich and everyone else.

To do so, Obama would have to have the balls and brains to break with neoliberal economic policy, something so far he's been unwilling to do. On the contrary, he headlined the launch of a neoliberal bastion, Bob Rubin's Hamilton Group and said:

"...Our country owes a great debt to a number of people who are in this room because they helped put us on a pathway of prosperity that we are still enjoying, despite the best efforts of some....When Roger originally called to invite me, not only to this forum but to invite me to engage in this project, I couldn't help but think that this was the sort of breath of fresh air that I think this town needs...Now, the economic statistics of the nineties that we are all so familiar with speak for themselves--income growth across the board, 22 million new jobs, the lowest poverty rate in three decades, the lowest unemployment in years, and record surpluses. None of this, I would argue, happened by itself. It happened because the leadership we had, including many in this room, was willing to take on entrenched interests and experiment with policies that weren't necessarily partisan or ideological."

Does he really think we owe a debt the neoliberals?
Does he really think neoliberalism is a breath of fresh air?
Does he really think Rubin took on the entrenched interests?
Does he really think Rubinomics is responsible for the prosperity of the nineties, and does he really think that was the kind of prosperity we can be proud of?
Does he really think Rubinomics isn't ideological?
What, by the way, is wrong with ideology?
Does he buy into the Washington Consensus on "Free Trade"?
Does he believe balanced budgets or social programs are more important?
He often says he's believes in a philosophy that transcends the old categories: What is it, then? What exactly is wrong with traditional Keynesian liberalism?
Will he raise taxes to pay for health care?
Are his fundraisers really shaking down lobbyists wives' as the Hill alleges?
Why did he vote against legislation that would have capped credit card interest rates?
Why did he oppose tort reform?

Real choices, you see, with real implications. It matters whether a candidate is a neo-liberal like Clinton or a populist liberal like Edwards. Obama seems to be, at best, a mix of the two, which is the wrong thing to be at this moment, when a populist platform is desperated needed to reverse income inequality.

Will Obama run a progressive campaign?

Very much an open question; the signs aren't promising.

by david mizner on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 01:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's more than just rhetorical (none / 0)

During the live webcast on Saturday, Obama's comments on income inequality were one of the many highlights that displayed not only his grasp of the issues, but of the impact those issues have on the lives of regular Americans.

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's good to hear (none / 0)

What does he plan to do about it?

by david mizner on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]