How Obama got his 258K donor movement

I've written a couple of entries quizzing about how Obama has used concert-like events to increase his number of donors, and how that's been a groundbreaking success compared to last cycle. This week, the WaPost and NYT's each look deeper into the mechanics of how the Obama campaign gathered over 258,000 persons into Obama's funding campaign to date.

The gist is that to get to that number, Obama turned to selling $5 tickets to over a dozen mega-events and selling merchandise at events and on his website, and then by counting those as contributions, he added tens of thousands of small donors to his total.

...to capitalize on his celebrity, Mr. Obama's campaign has also employed novel tactics -- like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions -- to pump up his numbers and transform grass-roots enthusiasm into more useful forms of support. No other campaign is known to have listed paraphernalia sales as donations.

The NYT's, Obama's Camp Cultivates Crop in Small Donors, article stated that in about 16 cities, Obama sold "tickets for $5 to $35 for events that attracted a total of 42,500 people -- about 15 percent of his roster of contributors." In addition, Obama has done "about half a dozen" large unpaid events, like the one in Oakland where 10,000 attended for free, "but spent $40,000 on Obama T-shirts, baseball caps, buttons and other knickknacks," which are also sold on the website.

The strategy by Obama's campaign, of broadening the small donors through something more tangible than emails--tickets and merchandise for campaign events, has played out excellently. They have been able to partly dictate the numerical terms on which the process stories which dominate the year prior to the elections, are played on; that allows Obama, for example, to get a headline from the LATimes that says: Small donors give big to Obama.

So how many additional small donors are we talking here? At the low end, I'd guesstimated in the range of 60-70,000 additional donors that Obama gained through his innovative small donor fundraising tactics. I suppose an Edwards or Clinton supporter could point to this and state that in terms of traditional ways of contributing, as a donor through a bundler, large donor through events, and small donors over the internet, that Obama is comparing apples to oranges. And not counting those numbers, Clinton and Edwards (whom each have over 100,000 donors) are combined more than Obama (which deflates the movement talk), but it's all fruit, and that no one else is doing it just means that the other campaigns are behind the curve in figuring out, like Obama did, how to amass a larger number of donors, make that a process metric of success, create a movement buzz, and gain more possible repeat donors.

It's brilliant:

...several of Mr. Obama’s fundraisers, who gathered in Chicago on Monday to celebrate their success, said the image of Mr. Obama’s army of small contributors had quickly become an advantage in asking for big checks as well. “People want to be part of a cause,” said John Roos, a Silicon Valley lawyer who helped organize the event at the Mark Hopkins Hotel. “We all feel that we are part of something much bigger than any individual, and Barack makes us feel that way.”
One of the things that's interesting here is how you are counted as part of the campaign. With Dean in 2003, anyone was counted if they merely signed up their email (~640,000 total) or attended a Meetup (~160,000 total) during the campaign. For Obama, you have to give money to be counted. Obama is very egalitarian about how much you have to contribute, saying at a campaign rally that, "I don't care how poor you are, you've got $5." Edwards too, has used the number of those who have contributed to his campaign as their online metric, though they haven't claimed the marketing leap that you therefore are part of a movement.

For the Obama partisans here, I hope you cherish the WaPost framing of my quote, A Foundation Built on Small Blocks:

Touting his success, Obama said his fundraising effort is "the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race." Jerome Armstrong, an Internet adviser for Howard Dean's insurgent campaign four years ago, didn't dispute that.

"What we're seeing here is Obama's broad, wide, mainstream appeal, and he's bringing in new people . . . people who aren't necessarily political junkies who follow the blogs," said Armstrong, who is the founder of the blog MyDD.

Yes, if the number of donors is the only metric for self-proclaiming yourself as "the largest grass-roots campaign in history", Obama has his place in history.



Display:


Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 2)

I hope all the whiners who think this is "amoral", "awful", a "sham", will swallow their pride and have "their" candidate think about doing the same.

This was a brillant move on the Obama Campaign.  Many have criticized him from the git, charging a "small donor" fee to hear him, now I expect many other campaigns to follow suit.

Remember, folk have the "option" to pay $25 to hear him or pass.  Simple as that.  Again brilliant move in the fundraising.  This campaign has been on it with the money from day one.

And lastly, the merchandise.  Most people who purchase merchandise, will nine times out of ten, SUPPORT the candidate, period.  I have never purchased a tshirt, lawn sign, bumper sticker, unless I was going to support the candidate.  Simple as that.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:48:22 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

What's odd is that no one thought of this before. And yes, I hope Edwards adopt this strategy.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

As Justin Timberlake once sang,

"Don't hate on me just because you didn't come up with it"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJJ6P_81n no


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Um He wasn't criticizing Obama's tactics on this at all.  Quite the opposite.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:22:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

You're right.  And I think it says just how shot Jerome's credibility is on Obama that many people assume he was criticizing him.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome's credibility (3.00 / 1)

Jerome's credibility is still holding except with the Obama supporters; half of his site (and it is still Jerome's site) still respects what he has to say.  For a good portion of the MyDD readers, it is Obama's followers who have lost credibility and not Jerome.  I wish they'd dish out as much venom at Republicans as they do at Clinton and Edwards.


by David Kowalski on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Actually I meant Bruh21, but Jerome as well.  He's as emotional as the rest of us are.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

and hence why your bias is the real problem that you have never noticed that I am pretty fair in what I say. A poster like you never ceases to amaze me- if you are being serious- with your inability to realize your own irony. I am the one being fair, and I get criticized for not being fair. yeah, that makes sense.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 04:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I'm not talking about Jerome. I'm speaking generally.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:37:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (2.25 / 4)

If nothing else it does explain why Obama is so insistent that he doesn't care how poor someone is: "Pony up that $5 cause it makes me look good."


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

This in no way deserves a donut.  I uprated the donut.  I wouldn't have rated otherwise.
And it is funny in an ironic way.  Obama supporters really need to chill a little.
Everything is deadly serious or mean-spirited.
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Not proofing properly.

Everything isn't deadly serious or mean-spirited.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:11:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

You know I don't understand why people want to denigrate purchasing keychains and the like as something less than support. I certainly am not looking to buy a t-shirt for someone I don't intend to support. And if big donors are supporters because they spent a grand or more to eat a chicken dinner, then what is the difference in the two givers except that someone who has less money can give what they have and still register their support. Their support may be even more enthusiastic, some big donors can afford to be seen at multiple fancy events, and may have something to gain, whereas the small donor has invested something in what they believe and walk away with something tangible that continues to remind them, and others in their circle who see it. I would rather my candidate earn more of his finance in these ways than in some other  methods I see from some of his competitors.


by jazzyjay on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

My thoughts exactly.  If you pay $1000 to go to a fancy dinner and hear the candidate speak, it's understood that you've made a donation.  Well, if you go to a campaign rally, the sort of event where people normally get in for free, your $5 is a donation for the exact same reason.  The amount is different, but the principle is exactly the same.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha, I got to laugh at the doubters (none / 0)

What is the likelihood that if you purchase Obama gear this early in the campaign season you're not a supporter? I mean realistically, it is very very very low. I've contributed several times over to the Obama campaign and have bought stuff from their store. I'd bet the other campaigns are wringing their hands at not being able to leverage donors like the Obama campaigns has successfully done.

And as for those $5 contributions, how else are the campaigns supposed to report those donations which add up to a big figure to the FEC? Edwards charges for his small change big change events, $10-$20, and of course they are counted as donors by the campaign.

The bigger question the doubters have to ask themselves is: Why has the Obama campaign been so successful with small donors? Obama raised $16 million from donations at $200 or below. That certainly is no small feat. It shows a campaign built on the strength of small donors.


by rosebowl on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:34:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I don't want my candidate to use Enron-style "creative accounting" when "counting" donors.  I want some honesty and not a Amway-esque scam.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:53:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Perhaps you should change your handle to "philgoGREEN".


by Sam I Am on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:07:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

How else would you count them?


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:13:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Sales, like every other campaign in the history of the US.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Except they are listed everywhere AS DONATIONS.  People buying KNOW they are making a donation.  Given those facts, I fail to see a problem.  I hope ALL campaigns do this... its smart smart smart.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Show me where a campaign has listed "sales" as a revenue source.  After all, you have to track how much people have bought, to avoid the limits.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Live Earth Shop

Visit the Live Earth Shop to purchase a wide range of T-shirts and other fashionably earthy accessories, with proceeds supporting Live Earth.

Damn "Amway-esque scam" organization! I buy a t-shirt and now I get emails which refer to me as a 'supporter'.


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

You, and others, are missing the point, it's not that Obama is counting you as supporters, it's that he's using an entirely different standard to count "donors."

D-O-N-O-R-S.

Got it?


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

The only difference in in your head.

When Live Earth tallies up the number of people who have 'given financial support to the cause', my t-shirt purchase will be counted.

The word 'donor' is used (I believe), as it has a specific legal context in terms of individuals paying into a political campaign (per FEC regulations).


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

ugh.  Just admit Obama's accounting is different from other campaigns so it compares apples to oranges.  It's true on teh face of it.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

If you say so.

Of course, that only means the other campaigns can't claim that they KNOW that they haven't received more than $2300 from any individual.

Plausible deniability?


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

I get your point but I think you could express it without the tude. I know they give it back to you but what you are saying is central to Jerome's point - Obama has turned "supporters" into donors by a clever device. It did give a false impression.

AdaB is smart enough to see the point and being an Obama partisan, not looking to acknowledge the point.

I know and you know where he is coming from. If Obama was our guy, as Edwards is your guy and Clark once was mine, we would be doing the same thing.

The strange thing is the attack on Jerome for callling it straight.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 2)

But he's not calling it straight - it's neither novel nor that "clever" a scheme.  It's the same as a meal or any other fundraising device that has been used for years.

The only difference is the campaign sells the t-shirts, etc. ITSELF rather than through a third party and therefore HAS to, by law, collect the name and count it as a donor.  In other words, they thought they could make money by t-shirt sales (most campaigns don't, which is why they outsource it), and they therefore HAVE to collect the names.  It's that simple Big Tent Democrat, I know you don't want to admit it.  

From the FEC:

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

heh. (3.00 / 0)

Of course, the "Obama gimmick" hypothesis presupposes that those people who purchased Obama knicknacks for $2.50 did not buy anything else.

If Obama got, say $2 million from his hordes of small donors, you would have a point. But he got $10 million. So he has volume as well as breadth, indicating that those purchasers actually made other small contributions as well.


by jforshaw on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:59:14 AM EST

and of course (3.00 / 0)

They actually paid willingly to the Obama campaign.  Whether you're paying to see Obama or paying for Obama merchandise, you still are giving money to the campaign knowingly.

These people can't be dismissed because they "got something" for their donation.  It wasn't like they sold a kid a Led Zeppelin t-shirt and then gave the money to the campaign.  It was either a ticket to see Obama or Obama gear.  They are indeed small donors who gave willingly to a campaign.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and of course (3.00 / 1)

And it DOES say on the SHOP page of his website that merchandise counts toward the $2300 limit (with a number to call if you've already donated $2300).  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh. (3.00 / 1)

Exactly

I have attended events, bought t-shirts and donate on a continual basis. I think these assertions are a joke, personally. You don't buy stuff if you don't support the person. Hello ? In any event, I am about to donate again and I'm also getting another bumper sticker to cover the empty space from when I ripped the Edwards bumper sticker off my car.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh. (none / 0)

I bought $100 worth of bumper stickers as my first contibution to the campaign.  Does that make me less committed to Obama?  Hell no.

I am also on the steering committee of our local Obama group which organized a fundraiser here in Portland.  We had over 75 people attend at $50 a piece plus a raffle and merchandise sales.  We neted just under $5,000, and now have a number of other events and a series of house parties in the works.

I was involved in the Dean campaign 4 years ago.  I think this is qualitatively and quantitatively bigger.  Most of the people who attended and are involved in the organizing are first timers.  Obama's message is clearly resonating with a whole new group of voters.

Jerome and other left-centric folks will no doubt continue to denigrate and minimize Obama as a progressive candidate and the movement potential of the campaign, but he is building and broadening the progressive base.  I don't know if he can beat Hillary and the Dem establishment, but his approach certainly seems to be bearing more fruit than Edwards' full on populist approach.

Don't get me wrong.  I like and respect JE and Elizabeth. I would be thrilled if he got the nomination.  However, I think his strategy is fatally flawed.  The corporate media plays a huge "gatekeeping" function.  They have decided that JE is too left to be taken seriously, that is why he is getting less press and less positive press.  

I think Obama's approach has greater coherence between message and messenger.  I hope that some of the lefties will realize that while Obama tones down the progressive rhetoric, he is fundamentally a progressive and that his life choices demonstrate his values.


by upper left on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:54:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh. (none / 0)

Democrats almost always nominate the person perceived to be the most progressive and the most electable.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:59:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh. (none / 0)

Not sure what history books you have been reading.

'68: Humphrey less progressive than McCarthy

'76: Carter < Udall
'80: Carter < Kennedy
'84: Mondale < Hart
'88: Dukakis < Simon
'92: Clinton < Harkin
'00: Gore  Bradley tossup
'04: Kerry < Dean

I don't think your thesis holds up to the facts.


by upper left on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:14:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All Obama All the Time (1.00 / 1)

Jerome, you and your obsession over Obama's "movement."  Let it go man.

When all is said and done, the fact that this is a massive grass roots movement will have much more to do than just the number of donors.  Did you see the Dan Rather piece on "Camp Obama?"  The training has just begun.

All campaigns and all partisans who are part of it believe they are part of a "movement" of some sort, Obama's just claims it and that drives you nuts.  Fine, we all get it.  

But really, other than obsessing over Obama, do you have anything else to say?  Or is that your sole niche now?


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:12:58 AM EST

Re: All Obama All the Time (3.00 / 1)

The Jerome quote at the end of this diary takes your assertions and stands them on their head. At least state facts. Talk about obsessing....


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Obama All the Time (none / 0)

I don't think Jerome said anything offensive.  I think he's impressed by the fundraising and hopes more Dems will follow.  Someone like Obama or Hillary or Edwards can use this for HUGE gains in the General.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (1.00 / 1)

It's a movement, Jerome.  And among other things, every piece of Obama paraphenalia that folks buy becomes a piece of advertising in that community.  Yes, these are campaign contributions -- how else could you characterize them, legally?

Also, I don't get the metric of "it's not a movement if, after you slice of some of the small-dollar donors, you don't quite have as many supporters as the next two candidates combined."  Seriously?  When was this the test?  By that standard, was Dean a "movement" after his magic summer?


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:21:51 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

If the legal characterization of trinket, lollipop and balloon sales are "small donations," why has nobody else included that metric in their campaign disclosures?   Wouldn't it be easy for any candidate to include any merchandise sale at events as "small donations" to their campaign, and add any such sale (and the buyer) to the "small donor" list?   Nobody does this.  Obama is the only one.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

They might well be, but I looked at the Edwards store, and there's no place where you have to confirm citizenship, etc.  Indeed, we have no idea what the revenue stream is there, as to whether the Edwards campaign itself derives money from such sales.  Because if it does, then they need to track things to ensure that no one uses merchandise sales to evade the $2300/person limit -- which the Obama site does.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Because they didn't think of it... bet they feel stupid for not doing this.  Whomever represents us in the General NEEDS to follow this playbook.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Can't Wait (none / 0)

I'm looking forward to receiving my two recent purchases.

Barack Obama for President Logo Bumper Sticker (white)  

Women for Obama Bumper Sticker - 3-3/4" x 7-1/2 (blue)  

Get yours today. They are having a sale.

http://store.barackobama.com/Stickers_s/ 500.htm


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 0)

But let me ask you this, Adam. If this is in fact a "movement", then what is it about, other than the candidate himself? Or, more to the point, what will all these new folks in the "Obama Movement" do once their candidate loses (which I for one, as someone who believes he is part of the "progressive movement", will work tirelessly to ensure)?

After Dean and Clark were defeated in 2004, what happened to their supporters and to the infrastructure they developed? Both of these candidate's supporters then poured themselves into the general, despite their candidate's loss, because it wasn't about the candidate, it was about reforming the institutions of the party which we believed, almost to a man/woman, had failed us so miserably over the past 30 years. And, as a result, there was a fairly easy transition amongst the truly movement oriented organizations that had formed around the candidates (i.e. Dean for America became Democracy for America, Music for Dean became Music for America, etc). And that movement continues to push on to this day, with many of the people, like myself, who became active around those campaigns continuing on in progressive politics, and some, again like myself, quitting much more lucrative careers to pursue more movement-oriented work lives.

This will ultimately be the test of whether you are correct that this is a movement. Just because you want it to be one, or because you feel in your gut that it is, doesn't mean that this is the reality. This should be considered a movement, if and only if the Obama fans are brought into the fold of the broader Progressive movement (which many Obama fans seem nearly hostile to) after Obama loses.

Is this really bigger than the candidate? Is the "hero worship"/"cult of personality" really a slur, or is it descriptive? Are Obama supporters really interested in taking part in the long hard slog towards meaningful reform and a progressive/liberal/working class/social justice/enviro/etc resurgence?

Only time will tell...


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (1.00 / 1)

Alex, you've made it plenty clear that you don't like Obama, that you're waiting for Gore to enter the race, etc., so your question hasn't been asked in good faith.

As to everyone else who's reading, this is a movement to end the war, to reform Washington, to improve health care delivery, fight global AIDS and fight poverty (among other things.)

I have been part of "the long hard slog towards meaningful reform and a progressive/liberal/working class/social justice/enviro/etc resurgence" for as long as I can remember, and that movement continues through the Obama campaign.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 2)

Oh please. If it is a movement to end the war, then why is it not concerntrated on actually, you know, ENDING THE War!

I assume all you say about Alex is true.

But where is your disclosure on how you believe everything Obama does is perfect?

Whatever Alex's motives, the questions seem extremely to the point. And I agree with Alex on the answers to those questions, if Obama loses, being the real test of whether there is a movement behind Obama.

Personally, like Alex, I believe it is a campaign for a candidate, not a movement.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 0)

I certainly don't believe "everything Obama does is perfect," and bashed him repeatedly over the "D-Punjab" thing.  Please don't dismiss me by claiming I'm unreasonable.

Everyone has a different legislative strategy for ending the war; that they don't all line up with your personal favorite doesn't mean they're not legitimate.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 2)

IMO, you are utterly unreasonable when discussing Obama. And have been so for quite a long time. You view criticism of Obama on most things as illegitimate. That is unreasonable. I have criticized Obama a lot, but not from dislike of Obama, but from dislike of his political style. I have written thousands of words as to why I think it is bad for the Democratic Party, if not necessarily bad for Obama. I was roundly attacked by Obama supporters, including you and accused of having an agenda against Obama. The same happens to Jerome. Why are the views of Jerome and I illegitimate to you and Obama supporters? Because you do not brook criticism of Obama in almost every circumstance.  

Obama has no legislative strategy to end the war. Unless you also believe in the veto proof majority approach. Hell, Obama does not even really lead on the veto proof majority front.

Look, here is what you will not accept, Obama is a candidate, and candidates think about, first and foremost, how to win.

And that is how Obama has acted as a Senator on Iraq. BTW, ALL OF THEM, including folks I supported, Vilsack and Dodd, are acting that way.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gee, welcome back. (none / 0)

I do not view criticism as "illegitimate," but when it's wrong, I say so.  There's a difference.  

I don't recall attacking you in such a manner.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, welcome back. (none / 0)

I apologize for the error.

I was attacked in the multitudes by Obama supporters for my reasoned critique.

I may be wrong, but I had an argument.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:17:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, welcome back. (none / 0)

It must be hard for you to keep track of all the arguments you've had. :)


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

Adam, really nice dodge of the subject by questioning my "good faith", esp from someone who cries every time I question your questionable motives.

Now we know what you think the Obama "movement" is about. Do you think that these are generally accepted as truth?

The movement I belong to is a movement to restore Democracy and the Rule of Reason to our nation, and I suspect that many of my compadres from 2004 feel the same way. I guess we're in different movements.

And yes, you've worked for a long time towards working class/social justice/enviro issues like supporting CAFTA, working against the interests of consumers (at least according to Consumer Advocate groups), and glibly rejecting the EPA and Environmentalist groups findings on the worst polluting energy source when your candidate tells you to do so (at least you recently said you'd read up on it before continuing to promote this horrendous mistake.  Thanks!). No wonder the movement has been progressing so well for so long!


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

My motive is that I want to see Barack Obama elected President.  If that's "questionable," fine.

Obama opposed CAFTA.  He was right on the Class Action Fairness Act -- it benefitted plaintiffs as the expense of plaintiffs' lawyers, though, surely, you could point to some data by now that would prove me wrong.

Re coal, Obama supported research that would determine whether tens of thousands of workers in his state could still have viable jobs.  It's a laudable goal.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 1)

I didn't say he supported CAFTA, I said you did. He, and you, were wrong on the Orwellian titled, Class Action "Fairness" Act. And I most certainly provided you, in the original back-and-forth with a nice big link to a ton of data opposing your view. (But hey, it's easy to ignore when you're motivated to do so). I'll post my response below to jog your selective memory.

Re: CTL research, this is where you, and your candidate, truly expose yourself. Even ignoring for the fact that you and your candidate are showing a shocking lack of understanding of the gravity of the threat we face, you also argue that we should ignore the fact that the research was already done, and that this is merely a big payoff to the biggest polluters.

Here's the original comment, where I did point to the data. I'll accept your apology for mischaracterizing whether I provided proof or not in advance:

Certainly not according to consumer advocates, whom I would say have a lot more credibility than either Obama or yourself (no offense). How many consumer class actions have you argued, Adam (on the side of those bringing the suit)? How many have been in State vs. Federal court? If this is based on personal experience, then please elaborate, because otherwise I'll go with the experts (from NACA):

   

The states' Conference of Chief Justices sees no "hard evidence of the inability of state judicial systems to hear and decide fairly class actions brought in state courts." These Justices believe "state courts and state legislatures should be responsible for correcting any problems(with class actions), and history has shown that will occur."
    --CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES, 28 March 2003 letter to then House of Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-IL

   "Misnamed the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003," the bill is anything but fair to injured citizens...[T]he fundamental reordering of basic principles of federalism embodied in S. 274 would, if enacted, result in far greater harm than good."
    --Attorneys General of the States of Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
    New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia, 13 June letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD

   "The Federal courts do not have the resources to administer justice to both their present dockets and the large number of complex state-court cases that would be added if S. 274 or its House counterpart were to become law...Equally troubling is a provision in S.274 that allows removal of a case at any time. This would give a defendant the power to yank a case away from a state-court judge who has properly issued pretrial rulings the defendant does not like, and would encourage a level of sorum-shopping never before seen in this country."
    --105 Law Professors From 26 States, 3 June 2003 letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD
    "S. 274 is an unnecessary attempt to impose federal judicial regulation on matters of law clearly committed to the states...the imposition of such cubstantial new responsibilities on the federal courts will further impair the ability of those courts to carry out essential functions they are intended to serve under the Constitution."
    --Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 20 March 2003 letter to the Senate
    National Association of Consumer Advocates
    1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
    Suite 805
    Washington, DC 20036
    202-452-1989
    Page 2

   "Moving this legislation forward would not serve the best interests of AARP's members or older Americans generally...S. 274 would limit access to remedies now available and delay--for years in many cases--the time needed to resolve class actions...Where older litigants die before tasting the fruits of victory, justice delayed would be justice denied."
    --AARP, 10 June 2003 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-UT

   "S. 274, `Class Action Fairness Act,' is a poorly conceived proposal that will substantially reduce the effectiveness of one of the most important legal tools consumers now have: state court class actions."
    --Consumers Union, 2 April 2003 letter to the Senate

   "S. 274 will also deny consumers access to protections afforded by their state consumer protection statutes...Thus consumers will not be protected by the state procedures written and passed by their state legislatures and interpreted by their state courts that may enable consumers to pursue claims that would be unavailable under federal rules...the jurisdictional changes mandated by S. 274 are designed to impede class actions, not to make them fairer or more effecient."
    --Consumer Federation of America and US Public Interest Research Group, 2 April 2003 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

   "The bill would allow corporate defendants in pollution class actions to remove virtually any type of state environmental law case from the state court to federal court, placing such cases in a forum
    that could be more costly, less timely, and disadvantageous to the citizen plaintiffs."
    --Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Mineral Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Group, 2 April 2003 letter to Senators Orrin Hatch, R-UT and Patrick Leahy, D-VT

   By pre-empting state laws, which often provide superior remedies for aggrieved citizens than available under federal law, and state courts, whose dockets are "lighter" than federal courts, a wide
    range of public interest groups believe S. 274 "is designed to give corporate defendants a lef up
    against consumers by moving virtually all state-filed class action lawsuits to federal courts...[resulting in] fewer certifications of class actions and delays in those cases that move forward."
    --American Cancer Society, American Association of People With Disabilities, Families USA and other public health related groups, 2 April 2003 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-UT

   "In general the tabacco industry prefers to litigate in federal court where the rules for certifying class actions are often more favorable to corporate defendants...The tobacco industry does not need more protection against citizen suits. If anything, citizens need more protection against tobacco industry
    wrongdoing."
    --American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Lung Association, 10 March 2003 letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT

   S. 274 "would radically alter state court jurisdiction over class action lawsuits by forcing most class actions into federal court. This bill would benefit the unregulated gun industry at the expense of victims of firearms violence and gun consumers."
    --Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United With Million Mom March, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 10 February 2003 letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

So why exactly should I take your word over those who are in the business of protecting my rights as a consumer? Are you saying that you know better than Consumer Advocates, NACA, the NCLC, the AARP, the State AGs mentioned, etc?


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope. Didn't (none / 0)

I never said he supported CAFTA, which is a wholly different bill from CAFA.  If you're going to respond to me, please read more carefully.  

All those quotes are predictions of doom and gloom from before CAFA's passage.  Four years later, I'm asking for evidence that it's happened.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:54:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My bad on that point... (none / 0)

But my other point still stands: if being progressive includes things like siding with experts, with consumers and those who are tasked with protecting us, and erring on the side of caution in regards to environment, than you are most definitely NOT either liberal or progressive, and you're claims that you fight for the environment and consumers are empty.

And my conversations with you are becoming more and more like conversations I had with friends who were pro-Iraq War, before the war began. Every point I make, which I back up with links to experts and facts, is met with a "hey, just because they say it can't be done, doesn't mean it won't be" or something equivalent.  Yes, there was certainly a "possibility" that Iraq could have flourished as a Democracy after we invaded, just like there is a "possibility" that CTL can burn 20% cleaner than oil. But in the face of overwhelming oppositional information you simply shrug it off and continue to advocate for/push forward with, something which will almost certainly be destructive.

And then, the real rub, those same sophists always state: well, if you don't believe my wacko scenario, it's up to you to come up with some proof that I'm nuts.

Actually, Adam, if you want to "prove" that the U.S. State Attorney Generals, the consumer groups that are tasked with protecting us, the EPA, the Environmental groups, or scientists in general are wrong, the burden is on you.

I know that this may not be true in your line of work, but sophism is not a virtue.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:49:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My bad on that point... (none / 0)

You've made the argument that the passage of CAFA was a "bad" thing.  I don't know how to prove a negative.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on... (none / 0)

Now you're just getting silly. I mean, you don't know how to prove it was a good bill or that it had good effects? Note how you never once, not once, present anything on the merits. I presented lots of expert testimony that this was a bad bill and you've presented bupkiss. Are you just lazy?

If you can't do better than sophomoric sophism, than I have better things to do.

Stick to the word games and election laws. I don't want you to get hurt out here in the real world.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on... (none / 0)

Thank goodness for blogs -- this one's compiling a ton of CAFA decisions.  You'll let me know if you see something marking the end of the world, because I haven't yet.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it helps you sleep better at night... (none / 0)

So this blog disproves what all of those experts said? HOW SO?

Just because there's a blog, doesn't mean you are any more right than you were back then. It also doesn't make you any less anti-consumer.

It's cool though- it's a lot easier to guard the hens when you know who the wolves are in your midst.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it helps you sleep better at night... (none / 0)

I'm saying you can read the decisions and determine whether there are outcomes that are horribly and unfairly anti-consumer.


by Adam B on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

back to school... (none / 0)

Really, you have sunk to the stupidest arguments I can think of. Yes, that's an impartial source. Accept for the fact that the writers of the blog have a vested income in coloring the outcome of CAFA:
The firm is recognized nationwide for its extensive practice in the field of class action defense, and has represented Fortune 500 companies across the country in hundreds of consumer class actions in state, federal and bankruptcy courts, arbitration proceedings, and Multi-District Litigation.
You're giving Philly schools a bad name. Stop before you embarrass yourself some more- really, we get it: you value the rights of corporations over consumers.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: back to school... (none / 0)

No, I don't.  All I'm saying about that blog is that it gives you the raw materials, and indeed, if their commentary is biased pro-corporation, it should give you all the resources you need to make the case for CAFA's being awful.

And as a plaintiffs' attorney in a massive class action right now, my personal interests are on your side of this.


by Adam B on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And on your motives... (none / 0)

I almost missed this gem of a quote:

My motive is that I want to see Barack Obama elected President.  If that's "questionable," fine.
It is precisely this motive that makes me worried, and if there are enough people like you within the progressive ranks, than we are truly screwed.

I am motivated because I want to see a return of Reason, and because I feel that sophists and magicians have become entirely too powerful. I am motivated because I want to try and do something about the Environment before it is too late. I am motivated because I feel that I am personally responsible for making the world a better place, and that I am personally responsible for working to ensure that all people are treated equally by the law. I am motivated because I know men/women, and I know that without the active participation and skepticism of large groups of other people, that those men/women will ALWAYS lead us towards tyranny and destruction. I am motivate by a desire to turn the Democratic Party back into an institution that fights for middle and lower class people, for the environment, for equal rights for all, etc.

And you are motivated because of a man. I guess we're just different.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And on your motives... (none / 0)

Well, I know the guy, so I have a good reason.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sold! (none / 0)

Adam has seen the light! How could I not support him?


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 0)

Actually many people feel that this is not about Obama at all, he is at the head, and he takes all the heat from those who hate his challenge but it really is about people taking control of their government and their destiny both collectively and individually, and not leaving it to those who work everyday for the interest of the few over the rest of us. He is not significantly different in policy and position than some of the other progressives running, I just think he articulates it better and connects with people better, and is far more believable to many than some of the others he is competing with. And what will happen when he wins, is that there will be more people in the process some of whom will continue to work in politics and policy and others who will get on with whatever they were doing before this moment. But America will be headed to a better place.


by jazzyjay on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 1)

This seems not true to me

"but it really is about people taking control of their government and their destiny both collectively and individually, and not leaving it to those who work everyday for the interest of the few over the rest of us."

You attribute that view to Obama supporters as if it is exclusive to Obama. Is there something in Obama's rhetoric that leads you to see Obama as the leader in that thought? I have not seen it. Frankly, you describe what Howard Dean did in 2003, not what Obama has done.

Obama is a great politican no doubt. And that is important. But he certainly did not start  a "people powered" candidate. He was the Great Post-Modern nonpartisan New Politics guy.

that is his signature. It is a signature that I object to personally.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

Think about it it really doesn't belong to Dean either, Remember that "We the People" stuff in the constitution, it sort of is in the DNA of what it means to participate in the great experiment that is America. My next observation in my comment is that Obama is not appreciably different from other progressives interms of policy, it is just that he connects better with many people. The fact that you can still be harking back to Dean, (and I was also a part of that) means to me that like Obama people you found someone who you felt carried a very old democratic theme in a new and exciting way, but yet when you see the same excitment in others you "object" to it.


by jazzyjay on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:25:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 0)

"Is this really bigger than the candidate? Is the "hero worship"/"cult of personality" really a slur, or is it descriptive? Are Obama supporters really interested in taking part in the long hard slog towards meaningful reform and a progressive/liberal/working class/social justice/enviro/etc resurgence?

Only time will tell..."

In that one section, you were able to both insult Obama supporters, as well as prevent them from responding by saying "only time will tell."  Great framing, but highly disingenuous, and intellectually lazy.

I can't speak for all Obama supporters, but as someone who is leaning in his direction, has read his book and followed his positions closely, for me it is indeed a movement.  A movement to bring politics in the next generation, to a candidate whose background and beliefs would instantly restore our credibility on the world arena.

Here's my framing: only someone who hasn't examined Obama's background and stances carefully could suggest his supporters aren't interested in meaningful reform.  

It is a movement because of the belief that only moving to the new generation of a candidate like Obama is the way to get meaningful reform accomplished.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 1)

This disproves it is a movement, not a campaign.

"I can't speak for all Obama supporters, but as someone who is leaning in his direction, has read his book and followed his positions closely, for me it is indeed a movement.  A movement to bring politics in the next generation, to a candidate whose background and beliefs would instantly restore our credibility on the world arena."

It is about moving the Obama campaign, not about moving issues.

That said, most politics is like that. All this movement talk is overblown by everyone, inclouding Jerome. By I think he has a good excuse - the Dean campaign was driven by the ideas not the candidate. Hell, let's face it, Dean was a pretty crappy politician. But what he said resonated.

By contrast, Obama is one of the most talented politicians we've seen in a while. But what he is saying is not really resonating. We remember Obama, not his words.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 0)

"It is about moving the Obama campaign, not about moving issues."

Um no, it's about moving issues.  We want to move Obama's campaign because we think he's right on the issues and is the right person to move that agenda forward.  You can keep insulting the hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters and dismissing them because you don't like Obama, which is your right, but you can't make up reality.

What Obama says may not resonate with you, but it certainly resonates with others.  There's a reason so many people have given and participated in his campaign.  Or, in your opinion, they must all be mindless idiots who think he's a great guy, but don't care whether he was for or against the war or countless other positions on which he's taken a clear stance.

So, when you say "We" when you say you remember Obama, don't try to speak for everyone.  You're speaking for yourself.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 1)

Like I said, if I went to an Obama event in Tampa and paid $5 to get in, I would be counted as part of the "movement," yet I am not supporting Obama for the nomination (but as VP candidate.)  If I bought a trinket for my daughter, that counts as yet another donation from a separate donor.   So, I would have counted twice as part of the Obama movement.   Whenever you see an article from a campaign event you read half the time "Well, I have not made up my mind yet, it is too early, I am just checking out the candidates."   That person can be hardly part of the movement, even though he/she is counted in as part of it by ponying up $5 to get into an Obama campaign event.    

There is no question that Obama has a lot of support, but why do the numbers have to be inflated this way to make the numbers of actual supporters appear bigger than they really are?


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

I believe (and I may be wrong) that the daughter thing is NOT a seperate donation.  I believe you have to be 18 or older to donate to a political campaign.  Otherwise, big donors could donate $2300 on behalf of their kids.  You would have been counted as 1 donor in this scenario... but probably as 2 donations.  Just want to point that out... unless I am mistaken on Election law, which PLEASE someone correct me (with links preferably)


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Nope -- the SCT struck down the BCRA ban on minors' contributions as being an unconstitutional and overbroad abridgement of their First Amendment rights.  Under-18s can contribute if it's their own money and their own choice, basically.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

No.

The OC (Obama Campaign) doesn't accept money from minors. It's on the website. You cannot complete a purchase or make a donation unless you acknowledge you are not a minor.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:52:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be legal for them to do so if they wanted to.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Really?  Wow, that's totally BS, IMHO.  I BET MONEY there are some kids donating $4600 to the GOP...and I'll bet there allowance isn't that high.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 0)

If you bought the trinket, you're still the same donor.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Yeah, but if my 10-yr. old daughter bought it (I hand her the money,) as you stated above, she would be counted separately, right?


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:54:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 0)

No, because it's not money she's controlling -- you've given it to her for the purpose of making a campaign contribution.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 2)

I am speaking from observation.

Indeed the most memorable things Obama has said are pretty damn bad:

OBAMA'S CHANGE ON TROOP FUNDING

In April, Obama Said That Congress Would Provide Funding For The Troops, Saying "Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground":

Obama: "I Think That Nobody Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops On The Ground." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

Obama: "[W]hat you don't want to do is to play chicken with the President, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced Humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles." (CNN's "Late Edition," 4/1/07)

"Given That Bush Is Determined To Veto A Timetable For Withdrawing U.S. Troops From Iraq, Congress Has Little Realistic Choice But To Approve Money For The War, Obama Said." (Mike Glover, "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War After Expected Bush Veto," The Associated Press, 4/1/07)

Being a pol, Obama then contradicted himself and voted against the Supplemental. And good for him. I like him much the better for his reversal.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

I have said this many times and I will say it again every time I spot someone trotting this silliness out:

1.  With the mad man in the WH, and an active band of elected Rethugs bolstering him, voting out funding for the troops is much like playing chicken with the troops' lives.

2.  He did not reverse himself, but cast a protest vote registering the clamor from a significant part of the country to begin to end this war.  It is a tricky political landscape and he does have to navigate it carefully.  He cast the protest vote after ensuring that the funding will pass.

3. The reason Obama is having to navigate this carefully in the first place is because of the other irresponsible, and yes, cruel/cynical/self-serving/political, dems who aided and abetted the untrustworthy incompetent in the WH -- Obama said before the war vote that once the decision was made to go into Iraq, we will have to fully support the troops.  Even if the Rethugs use this as a slogan, some people believe in this dictum rather more substantially than all those who are throwing stones at him now (go and read his work with vets, if you want to really understand where he comes from).


Don't let the Thugs define Sen. Obama: Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It looks a little desperate (3.00 / 0)

To try and give the appearance of 4 separate instances of "most memorable things Obama has said" when 2 are from the same article, 1 is left unattributed, and all from the same day.

You disagree with Sen. Obama taking this stand and what he said. That's fair. Say that.


by Benstrader on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks a little desperate (3.00 / 1)

It is what I remembered.

But unlike many Obama supporters, I am obsessed with ending the Debacle.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:48:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks a little desperate (3.00 / 1)

BTW, Obama said the chicken thing TWICE.

Read Talk Left for more on Obama's memorable statements on funding the Debacle.

I know more sabout this I think than you because I am obsessed with ending the Debacle.
 


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, just because you say it's true... (none / 0)

doesn't make it so.

I specifically asked whether the cult of personality thing was a slur. I personally suspect that it largely is, because I see a candidate who is short on ideals and long on wanting power, but I am willing to entertain the slim possibility that Obama really could be something bigger than himself (though I don't see any of that in his short Senate career).

And you say it's disengenuous to say "only time will tell", well, that's what history's for, isn't it? I'm sorry that I don't believe the hype of every "new" politician who make claims to "changing politics and the world forever". Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I've studied a lot of history, maybe I've studied a lot about the human psyche/human nature, and maybe it's all of the above.

But, whatever, brand me a heretic for being aware of history, human nature, and a born skeptic. That's fine by me.

And I would say that this comes dangerously close to being the definition of a cult of personality:

It is a movement because of the belief that only moving to the new generation of a candidate like Obama is the way to get meaningful reform accomplished.
Take out the "of a like" and I'd say that this would be a great explanation of why instead of if.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you see isn't what everyone sees (3.00 / 0)

Oh please on the cult of personality thing.  I said that moving to a new generation of a candidate like Obama, not that Obama is the only person in the world who can move meaningful reform.

But, as a professional marketer, I see the fallacy you're falling under.  You believe that just because you think a certain way, everyone else must too.  That's the cardinal rule of marketing - never believe what you think is what everyone thinks.

You see someone short on ideals, I and many others do not.  I believe he's very strong on ideals and has countless clear positions.  And I follow this thing closely, have read his and others' books, and have been keeping an open mind.

But, clearly, what's happening is that there are many following a guy you don't like.  There are those who think he's got the gravitas to take the job, you do not.  That is fine.  You are in your rights to think that way.  

But what you cannot do is dismiss all these supporters out of hand the way you do.  You cannot make the assumption that they are all being suckered into something and don't see something you don't.  That's not only condescending, it's incorrect.  

I believe you can think whatever you want.  I have no problem with that.  But I chafe at your casual dismissal of all Obama supporters and your assumption that they're all "wrong," or - my favorite - aren't "aware of history" the way you are.

You can think what you want, but condescension, especially without the facts to back you up, only makes you bad.  

P.s. it's certainly disingenuous to say "only time will tell," especially in the context in which you did.  You posed a question about Obama supporters, then instead of allowing for an answer, prevented one by saying "only time will tell."  That's what history is for?  No, you asked if Obama supporters want meaningful reform and are willing to slog through for it.  From what I know about supporters, the answer is yes.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (3.00 / 1)

"I can't speak for all Obama supporters, but as someone who is leaning in his direction, "

This statement of yours is far more questionable than anything Jerome has posted.  
You are not leaning towards Obama, you have fully jumped into his camp, by what you have posted.
This is an intellectually dishonest claim.
And you presume to judge someone else's intentions, what hogwash.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Nope, I am a Gore supporter first and fore-most.  I'm leaning Obama amongst the existing candidates.  I like Dodd too.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Hey, me too!  I am in exactly that same boat -- my heart is with Gore, but my head is with Obama!!  (Contrary to all pontificators' claims of Obama being the heart throb and Gore being the intellectual choice, for me it is exactly the opposite...)


Don't let the Thugs define Sen. Obama: Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

(Contrary to all pontificators' claims of Obama being the heart throb and Gore being the intellectual choice, for me it is exactly the opposite...)

Then you haven't read Gore's latest book.


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, way to frame it (none / 0)

Yes, I have -- I pre-ordered the book!

But I am speaking in a relative sense of comparison of the two head-to-head only.  Between them, I find Obama the more savvy choice for 2008 and Gore a more nostalgic/romantic/justice-related choice.

But if Gore were to jump in the race, then I definitely want Gore/Obama only -- I do think there is room for Obama to grow a bit more and season.

Anybody who knows anything at all about me knows that I know practically everything about the public Gore; I am reading up a lot about Obama, so this is not out of ignorance or low-info...I can elaborate if you ask me to...


Don't let the Thugs define Sen. Obama: Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (3.00 / 0)

I refuse to see how thousands of young people making their first contribution, turning out for the Obama campaign, or the 2,000+ young people receiving training as interns at Camp Obama, is a bad thing.  
How are you convinced that these people will disappear after their experiences of incredible success at collective fundraising and mobilizing other young people?  Obama's supporters have pulled off some amazing feats this time around.  $100,000 were raised from college students at a Boston rally mostly selling tickets to each other.  $9.7 million was raised from small donors.  How is learning what they are capable of and how much political impact they can have a bad thing?
Why do you assume these people wouldn't work just as hard in a general election campaign after being drawn into the process by Obama?  In a way, there are a lot of parallels between how uninspiring Kerry candidacy was seen among young people and how uninspired many young people are about Hillary, but then in 2004 young people turned out in record numbers for Kerry all the same and they will do it for Hillary too.  This isn't to say that I think an Obama campaign couldn't accomplish vastly more to expand the Democratic base, but just that Obama's accomplishments thus far won't evaporate.
Your comments show a bitterness and a cyncism that don't really have any basis other than your own gut reaction.  How do you expect to lead a populist revolution when you don't like people?
I don't expect you to support Obama, but you don't need to trash young people who are working hard on this campaign and doing good things.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)


I refuse to see how thousands of young people making their first contribution, turning out for the Obama campaign, or the 2,000+ young people receiving training as interns at Camp Obama, is a bad thing.  

I don't think that this is a bad thing, unless it is just about the candidate. As I pointed out, most of the Dean and Clark supporters used their experiences from the campaigns and applied them to politics after the primary, which is the point when I would say that this could be defined, even loosely, as a movement.  
How are you convinced that these people will disappear after their experiences of incredible success at collective fundraising and mobilizing other young people?
I am not convinced, I am concerned, espescially as someone who has specifically devoted himself to youth outreach and organizing. Maybe you are right, and these kids won't disappear after the election, but I for one don't think that, from the broader movement's perspective, that it is wise to believe that this is a foregone conclusion.
This isn't to say that I think an Obama campaign couldn't accomplish vastly more to expand the Democratic base, but just that Obama's accomplishments thus far won't evaporate.
I sincerely hope you are right, and I personally will work to ensure that you are.
Your comments show a bitterness and a cyncism that don't really have any basis other than your own gut reaction.  How do you expect to lead a populist revolution when you don't like people?
This is a bit funny. First- my basis is on history, study of the human condition, and my own life experiences. I can point you to the work that I've put online and/or published in these regards, but you're fundamentally incorrect.

As far as the leading a revolution goes, and a populist one at that, I don't recall sumiting my application for that job. And I do like people. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that I love people. What I don't do is trust people, and if you do, esp. in regards to politics, I'm thinking that maybe a Republic is not the right kind of political system for you. Ever read the Federalist Papers? Did we institute checks and balances because people are so nice, gentle, and principled?

Sorry, but this is the real world. And these are real people. Even a cursory glance back in time should give you pause in regards to trusting other men. If it doesn't, well, life is the best, and most cruel, teacher of all.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

If you are concerned then wouldn't it be prudent as a youth outreach person to contact the Obama campaign and address these issues.  I assume you are involved actively in organizing for the party, so you must know people, even if you are supporting another candidate.  Or, in the unlikely ;-) event Obama loses, then contact the campaign to get the names of the youth rolls and work to get them involved.  

Some youth will involve themselves like after Dean (but not all of those did) especially if Obama loses but gets the VP nod.  Others might not get involved on their own, BUT if they are prodded, asked and encouraged to become a part of the party, then many will.  It just takes encouragement.  Ultimately, its organizational behavior 101 (as I'm sure you know)...  Time will tell, but a lot can be done to hedge the bets.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Time will tell, but a lot can be done... (none / 0)

Words that I live by. ;-)

I agree fully with most of what you said here, and I have been struggling mightily with how to balance my deep suspicions of the candidate with not scaring away the people he's exciting.

Obviously I'm still not doing a good job.

As far as contacting the campaign goes, I have been in contact a few times, and each time left me feeling worse and worse about the candidate and his campaign. I'm not really sure how the candidate figures into long term youth organizing precisely because I'm not sure how committed they are to a long term struggle that doesn't involve their candidate.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:52:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time will tell, but a lot can be done... (none / 0)

Well, and I could be wrong, I assume you are a bit more... diplomatic in person, than on the Internets.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time will tell, but a lot can be done... (none / 0)

In regards to scaring people away, etc.  I haven't had that bad impresssions from the campaign, but then I haven't talked to anyone on those issues either.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That depends... (none / 0)

On who I am talking to.

But, on the whole diplomatic is not what most kids want to hear. Most kids want to hear decisiveness, and appeals to higher values such as reason, and they are very open to cynical attacks on candidates (unless they support them).

The most popular item that I had in my arsenal during my work as Youth Field Organizer for Philadelphians Against Santorum were posters of images like a naked Santorum screwing the state of PA, an image of Leatherface with a Santorum, etc. (Check the Partisan Project site for all of the posters).

I guess in person, I'd try to use more comedy to diffuse any tensions. But ultimately, if I come across strident opposition, most often in the form of conservatives, I can get a bit sword-tounged. But all-in-all I am almost certainly more persuasive in person, but persuasion doesn't always have to be diplomatic to be effective.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That depends... (none / 0)

Some kids... not all of them are open to cynical attacks.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

http://store.barackobama.com/product_p/t s00046.htm

If this isn't Mao Chic, hippster social-realism, I don't know what is?

Let's put the hey where the goats can get at it and realize that a big part, not all, but a pig part of the Obama campaign is build soley around the canidate.  And, before you jump down by throat, remeber that is what campaigns for president are all about.  

The goal of the campaign is to get Obama elected and nothing else.  If a movoment is created as result, it's like getting two toys in your cracker jacks.  

I think the problem alot of us folks who support others is that Obama is being disingenuos.  He's got a lot of small donors no matter how the bread is sliced, and they want him to be president.  Now it can't be said they all supporting a movment just because they support him.  The two things need to be seperated, the movment and the campaing.  


by Ortmann for America on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you say so, it must be true... (none / 0)

Do you feel he is truly being disingenuous, or is he simply not meeting your criteria for an acceptable presidential candidate? I don't believe Sen. Obama is the most progressive or well polished candidate in this race. But I don't ever remember hearing him make that claim.

I think much of the 'movement' is based on a desire to move America forward, get out of 1968 (Mao Chic?), and address the problems that every American is facing right now, putting a real focus on results, not ideology.


by Benstrader on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 3)

Campaigns never report paraphanelia sales as "small donations."  No matter how much they sell.   It is just a "sale," not a "small donation" from a small donor.   Obama is claiming that X amount of people are "donors" and therefore "supporters" to his campaign, when in fact many just went out of curiosity, perhaps have already decided on a different candidate or are undecided.   I am not saying that it is not ok to do so, as long as we all know the fluff that is behind a lot of these numbers.   Jerome estimates about 70,000 such "donors" for Obama, the number could perhaps top 100,000.   Again, campaigns usually don't report paraphanalia sales as "small donations."  That is absolutely stretching if someone buys their kid a $2 balloon to consider that person now a "small donor" to Obama's campaign.

Since the Obama campaign is not above these numbers games, how true are the numbers even WITH the addition of small-ticket events and paraphanalia sales to the small "donor base"?   If at an event someone bought 3 trinkets, they could have easily reported that as 3 separate "small donations" from 3 "different" donors, pumping up their numbers even more.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:23:48 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

http://store.barackobama.com/

All I see on there are lots of T-shirts, Hats, Signs, Stickers, etc., every one of them with the Obama logo displayed prominently.

No balloons.


by Korha on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:37:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

We are talking at the events, of course.   In addition to items with Obama's face on them, this also raises the serious question whether the Obama campaign tallied the sale of refreshments at the campaign appearances (i.e. soda, ice cream, Hot Dogs) as "small donations"?    


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

Not unless the campaign itself was the vendor.  At the Philadelphia event, that was run by the folks who run the venue, and the money didn't go to the campaign.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Yeah, shipping balloons is a bitch.  The packages don't weigh a lot, (they tend to lift off the scale) but you end up with a lot of "individual donations" stuck in the rafters of UPS facilities.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

If it is a revenue-generator for the campaign, in what sense of the word "contribution" is it not a contributon?
They couldn't have reported three trinkets as three separate donors because each time the donor would be making a contribution --- that means filling out a form with their information/employer/occupation and being added to the system, just as with any other donation.
I find your reference to these as numbers games kind of baffling considering, even if they were a technique for inflating numbers which I won't concede, Clinton has shamelessly been the only candidate in the Democratic primary to actively solicit general election donations to inflate her cash numbers.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:43:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

No, the GE numbers are clearly separated from the primary numbers, as it should be.   However, this is the first time paraphanalia sales have been included in the "small donor" column from any campaign, so there is a huge grey area.  Is it hard to understand that paraphanalia sales are commonly not included in "small donor" listings at the end of a quarter?  I have worked very closely with the Florida Gore campaign in 2000, and at no point was the considerable sale of merchandise tabulated as "small donations."  Bill Clinton sold a ton of merchandise at his events, T-shirts, buttons, etc.  At no point did I ever hear of those sales being included in the "donor" list.  They simply are not included.  

I am not opposed to changing that metric for all campaigns moving forward, but there has to be a reason why these sales usually never tabulate as part of the donor list.   Probably because it is impossible to track who bought what at busy campaign events.  Which makes me wonder how "well" the Obama campaign reported this stuff, or if they had free license to list sales any which way they wanted (i.e. list sale of 3 items as three different "small donations" from 3 different "small donors.")


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

This has been answered many times.  They are all counted.  I volunteered at the Virgina JJ Dinner down in Richmond.  We were selling t-shirts, pins, and rally signs.  Even at the busiest of times, and there were very large lines, we made sure that the donor form was filled out completely before completing the transaction.


by Obama08 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

And what about inflating Clinton's official numbers for this quarter. On June 30, there was a significant gap between Clinton and Obama, On the 15 the gap was miniscule, something about not factoring 3million in debt. What was that about?


by jazzyjay on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

That brings a good question to mind.  Are the 258,000 donors all recorded in the way you described?  
Or do the numbers include some estimates?
I know that there were different numbers for donations and donors.  
What is not clear are how many of these donors are actual official donors having filled out donor information.
This is not meant to disparage the campaign, I would just like accurate information since this approach changes some parameters.
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Yes, they're all recorded -- they have to be, because once these folks on the aggregate cross the reporting threshhold, then they become named contributors.


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Go onto the Obama store website and try to buy a bumper sticker.  They'll ask you for your address, occupation, and employer and make you sign the pledge that the money is your own and you aren't a registered federal lobbyist.
The purchase has been treated by the Obama campaign as the same process for any other donation.
I've searched for myself in the FEC-reported donor database on the New York Times' website, and since I cleared the $200 total hurdle for reporting, every one of my contributions or purchases regardless of size was reported.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

Every direct monetary donation, every merchandise purchase and every ticket purchase, all count as individual "donation".

However, the individuals doing these activities are also tracked.  Meaning thereby that donors who do different types of activities or are repeat donors, can be identified as such.  

To see how this works:  If I buy some merchandise (say a hat, a pin and a bumper sticker), attend one rally by buying a ticket and make donations twice, then the database will record these as:

               4 donations
               1 donor

According to the campaign, less than 0.5% of the merchandise purchasers are purely purchasers (that is not donating otherwise). That means, less than 1500 of the 250,000+ donors are mere purchasers.


Don't let the Thugs define Sen. Obama: Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Campaigns HAVE to treat "sales" as donations.  Election law makes them.  If a person "buys" something from the campaign, sure they get the stuff, but their information still has to be collected and sent to the FCC as if it were a donation.

If it wasn't this way, don't you think the campaigns would've figured out a long time ago that they could sell pieces of tin foil to large donors for a million dollars?


by maddogg on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

No that's not true... The donors are individually tracked and each transaction counts as a donation... one person buys 3 items its 1 donor, 1 donation.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Defensive much? (none / 0)

Not every observation about Obama's campaign, even when from Jerome, is an attack. The campaign is structured like a merchandising effort around a celebrity, that is not intrinsically bad and it is silly to attack people for pointing it out. Nice to see that more people are looking into my chum theory.


by souvarine on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:25:15 AM EST

Re: Defensive much? (3.00 / 0)

You said something very interesting: "Not every observation about Obama's campaign, even when from Jerome, is an attack."  In other words, you admitted, in your wording, that Jerome has a proclivity to attack Obama.

You are absolutely correct, not every observation about Obama is an attack.  Indeed, all campaigns can be criticized.

But the problem is Jerome has lost all credibility when doing so.  He has posted so frequently and almost exclusively about Obama.  In doing so, he has frequently misused "facts" and pretended that his opinion was an "honest observation."  I mean, his hatred runs so deep that when he posts something unrelated to the campaign, he finds ways to throw in a dig at Obama.

Now, there is clearly something beyond the ordinary when it comes to Jerome's all-consuming obsession with Obama, and I'm not sure what it is.

Anyone is free to post anything they want about any campaign.  But, as your phrasing suggests, Jerome is no longer an honest observer.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama fans are sole arbitors of reality... (none / 0)

You say Jerome has lost credibility over this, and maybe he has... with Obama fans who cannot stand any criticism of their candidate, and who have shown themselves openly hostile to Reason when it goes against their candidate's stand, for example the EPA's estimate on CTL, and Obama fan insistence that "it must be possible" simply because their candidate stated it could be so.

I've had a longer post on this brewing in me for a while, but I became so active in politics because I saw the insanity of a group of politicians who glibly rejected the advice of scientists and experts to pursue the goals of a narrow self interest/ideological group, primarily by using the 1% doctrine (or whatever % it is), which is that if there's a slim possibility that something is true, that you can ignore the overwhelming majority opinion of experts.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:52:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This isn't about Obama fans (none / 0)

"You say Jerome has lost credibility over this, and maybe he has... with Obama fans who cannot stand any criticism of their candidate."

Wrong and wrong.  I have criticized Obama.  I know many other supporters who have as well.  No candidate nor any campaign is perfect, and anyone who thinks so is deeply wrong.

Yes, there are always Kool-Aid drinkers for every campaign.  But it is far too easy for you to defend Jerome's intellectual dishonesty by blaming "Obama fans" who don't like "reality."  Well fine, there are some Obama fans, and Edwards fans, and Clinton fans who don't like reality.

That's not what this is about.  This is about Jerome losing his credibility by his pattern of dishonest, incorrect, and relentless obsession with Obama.  If he posted about any other candidate the way he does about Obama, I'd say the same thing.

The problem isn't that I don't like what he's saying.  It's that what he's saying is so often factually incorrect and skewed by his open disdain for Obama - and yet he continues to post as if it's "honest observation."

This is about Jerome, not about the Obama fans.  There will always be partisans, but that doesn't excuse anyone, let alone a "prominent" blogger, from being honest.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (none / 0)

When was Jerome "intellectually dishonest?"


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (3.00 / 0)

I'm not even sure where to begin - go to jeromearmstrong.mydd.com and look carefully at the pattern of posting.

But let's start with this post here about the Iraq War, in which Jerome writes that the fact that Obama was against the war at the beginning will not be a factor in this race.  

Can any honest observer, Obama-fan or not, Democrat or Republican, actually say that Obama's initial stance against the war hasn't already been a factor?  It's been an enormous factor in recruiting thousands of people to his cause.  

But that's just one instance of Jerome pretending to be an honest observer, and writing something that's factually incorrect - it represents his wishful thinking, not reality.  There are countless others.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (none / 0)

BTD is asking SPECIFICALLY about this diary.   You make a heavy charge, so please point the dishonesty out that you claim to see in this diary.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:21:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice try (3.00 / 0)

You can limit the game, but my point is about Jerome.  He has a pattern of posting, and you can't take any diary out of context.  His obsession and constant fallacies about Obama are the issue in my comment.

But, if you want to limit it to this diary, how about this one: "And not counting those numbers, Clinton and Edwards (whom each have over 100,000 donors) are combined more than Obama (which deflates the movement talk)"

That's intellectually dishonest because it discounts the fact that those who give to Obama through event tickets, merchandise sales, etc, are still willingly giving to Obama.  They are donors, just as valid as any other kind of donor.  

But my point is that Jerome's credibility is shot because he pretends to blog honestly about Obama, but has demonstrated an inability to do so over the last few months.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or this one (3.00 / 1)

citing this: "Mr. Obama's campaign has also employed novel tactics -- like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions"

Clearly Jerome is implying this is a novel and new technique.

But guess what?  It's election law.  And charging for speech tickets has been around for awhile.  By the way, I paid $100 to hear John Kerry speak in 2004.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or this one (none / 0)

From what I have seen, counting paraphanalia sales as "small donations" is indeed novel and has not been done by any campaign, past or present.  Jerome Armstrong is right-on with his remark of this being a novel approach.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or this one (3.00 / 1)

Then why does the FEC itself note that such sales count as a political contribution to a campaign?

FEC Citizen's Guide

Fundraising Tickets and Items

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).

It seems to me that the the discussion shouldn't be about Obama doing this, but about why the other campaigns AREN'T.


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (none / 0)

Could you explain what Jerome wrote that is "factually incorrect" or "dishonest"?   I looked through the diary and can't find the instance of what you are talking about.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:20:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (none / 0)

See above - and to be fair, it was much more about Jerome himself and his pattern of posting than about this diary itself - yet I still found some examples.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't about Obama fans (3.00 / 1)

Actually, Jerome is reporting facts; there is some commentary, but by and large this post is simply delivering of information.

The attacking here is by you.  You are the one saying Jerome has lost all credibility because he is reporting something you don't find convenient in the framing of your candidate's "movement".


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama fans are sole arbitors of reality... (none / 0)

Sometimes the criticism you claim is "reason" isn't.  Its a subjective term.  Now that being said, I don't see anything unreasonable you or Jerome has said in this diary.  Not at all.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oxymoron Environmentalism (none / 0)

The whole clean coal debate is a sham. Even if the CO2 could be sequestered there are no guarantees that it would stay sequestered. I understand a Senator trying to do something to bring jobs to his state but that excuse has been used for all kinds of crap. Coal is not the answer to our energy needs and it certainly doesn't solve the global warming problem. It in fact only contributes to the problem significantly. That some Obama supporters have been so blinded by their adoration for their candidate to believe things that are completely false is frightening. It's Bush all over again.


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defensive much? (none / 0)

It's my impression that Jerome will criticize anyone who's actions warrant criticism, he just doesn't suffer hype gladly, and has no patience for shallow rhetoric.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha (3.00 / 0)

That was hilarious.  "Jerome will criticize anyone who's actions warrant criticism."  

Wow, Jerome is now officially God, the ultimate moral arbiter of what does and doesn't warrant criticism.  It's as simple as that, huh?


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:06:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

Sensitive much?  Would you like some cheese with that?

He's one of the ones running the blog.  If you don't like what he posts there are many other blogs you may find more to your liking.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:29:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (3.00 / 0)

Hey, it is his blog and he can post what he wants.  And I'm free to point out that his posts are intellectually dishonest?  Or if you don't like that, I have to leave, huh?  I'm not allowed to contribute to the conversation if I make a point you don't like?

My man, you're the one who wrote that "Jerome will criticize anyone who's actions warrant criticism."  You can try to call me sensitive, but the words were yours, not mine.  Change the subject all you want.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

How is his post intellectually dishonest?  

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to contribute to the conversation.  I'm saying you are whining and overly sensitive. If you can't handle your "movement" head being criticized or investigated go somewhere where you can bathe in "movement" adulation without anyone calling bullshit.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

Sigh - first of all, where or where did I say that my support of Obama = desire to bathe in "movement" adulation?  That's your biased assumption that Obama supporters can't just like Obama.

Second, I cited in two posts above how this post in particular is intellectually dishonest - but my larger point is that Jerome's pattern of posting is intellectually dishonest and he's lost all credibility at this point.  He can't pretend to be an "honest observer," as he does, because he isn't.

In this particular post, the implication that what Obama is doing is new or novel is factually incorrect.  And the idea that if you removed these donors who pay for events and items from the list, you'd be on par with other candidates is dishonest too - because these are donors who are willingly giving to a campaign and are registered because it's the law.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:24:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

I have seen it stated several times (in this NY Times article, for instance) that no other campaign has ever listed paraphanalia sales as part of their "small donor" base.  

Therefore, you are not quite honest in painting Armstrong's remark as dishonest, when indeed it is a "novel" approach after all.


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

There are no "honest observers".  Everyone has a bias, we just have to choose whom to trust based on what they have said, noted or argued previously.

The fact is, what Obama is doing is novel-- not necessarily good or bad, but different, and that different approach is leading to inflated numbers of what has traditionally been considered a donor.

Unfortunately calling attention to this fact diminishes somewhat the incredible amount of small donors BO has acquired.  So, some of his supporters are choosing to shoot the messenger-- going so far as to call Jerome dishonest, and saying he has lost credibility.   These actions are CRAP.

I know the hope is that Jerome will pull his punches now in regard to Obama if enough supporters whine.  When republicans do this to the press, we call it (hat tip to Alterman) "working the refs".  Either way it's CRAP.

I hope Jerome keeps doing exactly what he does.  We need candor and the skeptical eye on all candidates.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Haha (none / 0)

Exactly.  But I doubt Jerome will let this type of stuff deter him from calling attention to problems all of our candidates have.   He was flamed viciously (even called a TOOL by one of the more reactionary Obama posters,) but I don't see it deterring him from writing what he wants to write.   It is his site, for cripes sakes, even though some Obama posters seem to act as if it were theirs.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defensive much? (none / 0)

Critque becomes attack now.

Unbelievable.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't critique (none / 0)

Critique implies honest observation.  Critique is always welcome.  

Jerome's post, therefore, do not qualify as critique.

Again, stop trying to put this off as "defensive-ness" or worrying that any "critique of Obama equals attacks."  I have absolutely no problem of critiques of Obama.  In fact, I welcome it.  That's what a primary is for, and being critiqued for mistakes (of which he's made plenty) can only help him improve.  The same goes for all candidates.

But that's not what Jerome does.  He makes things up, and pretends that his "facts" and "wishful thinnking" is "honest observation" and "reality."  It's intellectually dishonest.  

My issue isn't about Obama.  It's with Jerome being dishonest and posing as an honest observer.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't critique (none / 0)

Well then back up your assertions about this piece with facts. Or would that require having something other than an opinion?


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't critique (none / 0)

I've done so countless times - read my comments, I cited specific parts.  And again, it's not just about this piece, it's about Jerome and his pieces taken in aggregate.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ENVY much? (none / 0)

Jealously becomes critique now.

Hilarious!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ENVY much? (none / 0)

Huh?

I did not know I was running for President?

This thread really dispells the arguments that some make about the cult of personality that appears to imbue the Obama supporters.

Ity is not all of course but the projection is so strong on it.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama campaign spokesman (3.00 / 0)

The number of purely merchandise donors was wildly exaggerated in the press:

Campaign spokesman Bill Burton said such small donors account for "less of half of 1 percent of all donors."

"A lot of those folks have given otherwise," Burton said. "It's probably even a smaller number than that."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_o n_el_pr/campaign_money;_ylt=AuGoX.8G8IpA rUEEhUTpiZxp24cA
Rosebowl posted this in another thread.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM EST

Re: Obama campaign spokesman (3.00 / 0)

Burton makes the point that (1) such donors make up a tiny percentage of the overall number, and (2) that people purchasing merchandise have mostly given already and hence wouldn't be counted as separate donors.
Making online purchases from the Obama store contributions also opens up the chance to solicit more donations during the process.  Purchasers can "round up" their bill and add a contribution onto their purchase, much in the same way one can tip ActBlue while contributing there.
Third, by listing these people as contributors and bringing them into the campaign, you're getting their contact information and adding them to your list to hit up later.
Lastly, items at the Obama store are much higher priced than, say, at the Clinton store --- T-shirts cost twice as much, for example.  This is a revenue-generator, and if it is, than these should be counted as contributions --- including being counted towards the $2,300 FEC limit, which is explicitly stated on the Obama store website.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:35:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Once you get closer to the belly of the Campaign my experience is that the campaign's roots are deeper than the numbers would suggest.


by howardpark on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:33:25 AM EST

Really? (none / 0)

Because from what I've seen, and from what I hear, the closer you get to the belly, the more you realize that this is not a "new" or "movement" campaign. I guess it depends on your perspective.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

One Man's Pig is another's Princess.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Jerome, My question is whether there were 250,000 different individual donors, no matter if they purchased Obama gear or gave at an event or bought a ticket to an event?  How are the donors counted or are there double counts, for example someone buys a ticket to an event and then buys a tee shirt, is that person counted as one or two donors?

Obviously his campaign has been creative and he has raised a lot of money.  I just would like a sense of how the total is determined.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:34:26 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

Obama set separate goals for donors and contributions and counted them separately.  He raised 350,000 contributions from 258,000-odd separate donors.  A person buying a ticket and a t-shirt separately would be counted as one donor making two contributions.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Do you know for certain whether all the 258,000 donors actually filled out a card with donor information?
In other words there is a list of 258,000 individual donors.
I thought that under a certain amount donor information is not needed.
I ask this just to be sure, because I think all the information needs to come out at once.
I do think Obama's fundraising and developing small donor support is something to be impressed with.  I am impressed.
However when people feel taken in by the way the information is presented then they become less trusting of the information.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Yes, I volunteered at an event he held and we made every single person buying merchandise fill out the donor form.  Even though donations under $200 don't always need the donor info collected as I understand it Obama collects all of it and reports all of it to the FEC.


by Obama08 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On event fundraising (none / 0)

It's has been standard for decades that big donors have made big donations to attend small dinners with the candidate, and all of the candidates do it, why should it suddenly seem outrageous that Obama would be doing the same thing with small-dollar donors?  This is exactly what we should be demanding our politicians do more of.  
The outrage of some people in the discussion threads that Obama's numbers are phony seems odd to me.  

Second, these small donors are raising big money for the Obama campaign.  In the second quarter, donations under $200 were $9.7 of his $31 million total in primary dollars.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:50:05 AM EST

Re: On event fundraising (none / 0)

The outrage that some people express, is that they were very impressed by Obama's fundraising numbers and in particular, his donor base.
Finding out that some of the donor base is determined by merchandise selling is a new piece of information.
This means people are not comparing the same thing.
And also the Obama campaign hyped these numbers and compared them to the other campaigns.
In my view, the numbers are still impressive, but there is a bit of smoke and mirrors effect because others made different assumptions.
Many feel misled by the Obama campaign.  They may be justified.
I think the fundraising is still very impressive, but people need to be able to compare the same parameters to feel comfortable.
Actually I think Obama's campaign made a mistake in not being very clear up front in what they were doing.
This controversy is taking the sheen off his numbers, even though they are still very formidable.
The information may have been there but if people are not looking but make assumptions from past practice,
they then don't feel very positive to find out that they were mistaken and now feel that the Obama campaign was somehow dishonest.
Being defensive about the numbers isn't good for the Obama campaign.
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Take a look at this! (none / 0)

WooHoo! See the small circles of donors in the south.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2 008_EG_FINANCES.html

As Bill Maher said - Democrats need to win the south - and endorsed an Edwards/Obama ticket.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:50:25 AM EST

Really? (none / 0)

They won in 2006 without winning the South.  If they win the Mountain West and/or the Midwest, they'll win just fine.

By the way, the notion that you need to have a southern accent to win in the south, or indeed that having one means you WILL win in the south, is pretty ridiculous.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

Webb ... Virginia ... Bueler ... anyone?


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

You're really going to use Macaca boy's razor-thin loss to prove this point?  

Take a look here, Phil.   The Dems don't need the South, and having Edwards is no assurance of winning it.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (3.00 / 1)

The Dems don't need the South

Hmmm, that's what Kerry thought...


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

Did he think that when he put a Southerner on the ticket with him?  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

He didn't want his Southerner on the ticket campaigning in the south.  Hang that loss on Kerry (and some Ohio vote stealing), not Edwards.


by Rooktoven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

I support a Dean 50 state strategy myself. Take nothing for granted. Although it looks like we will coast to the Presidency, the election is a ways off and a whole lot can happen between now and then. It is much better to fight for the Presidency everywhere and take no chances at all.


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take a look at this! (none / 0)

To be fair, the circles in Dallas (Dallas, Dallas!), Houston and Austin are pretty big :-)


Don't let the Thugs define Sen. Obama: Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

I had heard stories about mydd having a generally anti-obama attitude before I joined.    I thought I'd give it a try anyways.     Well, how right they were.    There isn't a day that goes by that there are several diaries and front page stories that are either outright attacks on Obama's campaign or just plain FUD.    Is this the official policy of mydd ?


by soros on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:12:39 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Yeah, there isn't a day that goes by when there aren't a slew of Hillary hit pieces too. And your point is what?


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Well I've been leaning towards Biden during this race so I've been seeing what takes place on mydd through a completely different set of eyes than most people here.

Don't mistake what I said as some sort of defense for Obama because it isn't.    I'm just making an observation of what normally happens here on mydd.    I don't hold a grudge against obama or hillary but it really has surprised me how many anti-obama diaries and front page stories show up...  it makes me wonder sometimes if there is not a systematic effort on the part of the mydd owners to tear down obama..

is a progressive website like mydd just a campaign effort by edwards/hillary to rip him to shreds?   sounds like the classic divide & conquer strategy I've heard about .. somewhere before


by soros on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

And there are daily Edwards hit pieces too.

It is the nature of a primary.  What is it about Obama supporters that they are on defense all the time?


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

"What is it about Obama supporters?"

You can try to make this about supporters all you want, but it's about MYDD and Jerome in particular.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I'm not sure that movement is true for Obama or Edwards.  I am an Edwards supporter.  
Obama has brought in over $16M in small contributions.  
It would be interesting to know how much of that is in merchandise purchases.  
Nonetheless it still is an impressive amount of money for the Obama campaign.
And now I want to know how much in sales of merchandise did the Edwards campaign bring in.
I still congratulate the Obama campaign for being creative in fundraising.
I just feel I would like to compare apples to apples or maybe pecan pie.  ;-)
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:14:25 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

This is a good attempt to account for the 250,000 Donors - although it does not account for the 100,000 plus of those donors who are repeat (Obama has as many repeat donors as Edwards and Hillary have in total).  It also doesn't account for the 16 million in small donations which they did not get to through merchandise sells or ticket sells.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:16:59 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Sure, but Obama's creative accounting means that if you attend a event where he charges you $5 and then buy a bumper sticker, you're a repeat "donor."

Give up defending it folks, this stinks and it sure aint straight-forward "new politics."  Obama used creative accounting to try to fool Americans about the size of his "movement."  It's as simple as that.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

No he's not. The only people trying to FOLL Americans are the ones who stuff MyDD and Daily Kos polls.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Please explain why correctly following the election laws is "creative accounting".

If a campaign receives money in any way shape or form, all out contributions or in exchange for goods or venue admissions, it's supposed to be reported. And it's supposed to count against the $2300/campaign individual limit.

NOT doing so opens the possibility of getting around the limits by having some deep-pocketed person buy up a stadium's worth of event tickets and a truckload of bumper stickers.

Is any of this getting through?

If your candidate is NOT tracking these things, there is the real possibility that FEC regulations are being broken (even without the campaign's knowledge).


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Phil, I really don't get what irks you about this.  This isn't creative accounting.  What amount of money for attending an event is a donation and what isn't?  

A five dollar speech ticket?  
A $20 dollar bbq?  
Maybe it is the $100 chicken dinner?  
A $250 meet and greet?

Tell me, which one of those is the first that should be counted and why the one previous to that shouldn't be counted as a donation.

Furthermore, if you are paying to put advertising on your car (bumpersticker) or on you chest (t-shirt) I don't see why that isn't a donation either.  Especially when you are paying more than cost and the campaign is collecting money from the transaction.


by Obama08 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

When you hand over money and receive something in return, it is called a sale/purchase.

When you hand over money and receive nothing in return, it is called a donation.

Having a tough time understanding how y'all can't figure that out.  It's been standard campaign accounting since forever.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

So those $2300 per plate fundraisers shouldn't count against campaign contribution limits because they're buying a meal?

Oh, that makes sense.

You've just made the idea of individual limits on campaign contributions completely meaningless. As long as the campaign hands over something, anything at all, people can give any amount of money.


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

Would you have a problem with Fred Thompson selling a sticker to Murdoch for $100,000?

Would you have a problem with the Obama campaign not counting them as donations and selling 10,000 t-shirts at 20 bucks a piece to one individual?

Obama is charging more for chum than Edwards or Hillary and is taking in more in revenue from it.  He isn't giving it away.  I am of the opinion that our candidates ought to be above reproach and should report every possible donation.  You are entitled to think that this approach is not appropriate, but by doing so you allow either of the two situations I point out at the beginning to occur.


by Obama08 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Phil, you've blown it (3.00 / 1)

It's okay, I sometimes screw up my arguments too, but this time you have to admit defeat.  Every fundraiser sells a good of some sort, here's from the FEC:

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 02:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Following election law is 'Novel'? (3.00 / 0)


Mr. Obama's campaign has also employed novel tactics -- like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions

Since when did following election law become Novel?  If a campaign sells an item, they HAVE to report that to the FCC and collect the name of the person who bought it just as if they were donating to the campaign.  It also has the same $2300 limit as contributions.

Are you suggesting that all campaigns take EXTRA effort to count these people in a different category when reporting it to the FCC?   I seriously doubt that.


by maddogg on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:20:29 AM EST

Re: Following election law is 'Novel'? (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, exactly. I don't get what people are thinking here - if the other campaigns are not counting T-shirt sales in their donation totals, they could be bypassing the $2300 max per donor.


by cms on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Following election law is 'Novel'? (none / 0)

You have raised an interesting point.  Those $2300 donors of Obama's.  Are they supporting Obama illegaly if they then purchase merchandise?


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is clearly counting the t-shirts (none / 0)

Thus the point of Jerome's post. The question is, what happens when a maxed out Clinton donor, for example, buys 200 T-shirts. Or 2 T-shirts. Does that money not count as a donation?


by cms on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Following election law is 'Novel'? (3.00 / 1)

The answer is YES!  The only exception would be if the spill over is put on the general election funds.


by maddogg on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

Win or Lose, Like him or not... The big legacy Obama will leave from this campaign is a continued Playbook for Democrats to fundraise.  Dean started it by effectively using the Internets to raise money, Obama took the concept improved and expanded it to help bring fundraising to new heights.  I expect whoever our candidate is in the General, He/She will either continue or follow this playbook and help destroy the GOP in fundraising and I expect further candidates to follow this playbook.  Its effectiveness is undisputed.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:27:36 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I agree yitbos.  Obama's campaign has been very creative and has changed fundraising strategies.
I think they deserve kudos for this.
I am very impressed.

I'm not convinced about counting merchandise sales in the donor base total.  
I asked above, if someone donates a $2300 check, can they now buy merchandise or not?  
Is this then counted in their total.  I don't think it was before, but now it is murky.
It needs clearing up.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

I'm not sure how the money is counted at that point... honestly, my guess is that when a donor donates $2300 they are entitled to a free shirt or two....

I don't know how te live events are handled... on his website however is the following:

"Thank you for visiting the Obama for America online store. All of our products are top quality, union and USA made and produced. All purchases made on the Obama Store are 100% contributions to the campaign and count toward your overall contribution limit.

An individual may contribute up to $2,300 per election (the primary and general are separate elections). This limit includes contributions made through the Obama Store. If you have already made the maximum contribution and would like Obama merchandise, please contact Obama for America at (866) 675-2008."

So obviously there is a measure at least.  Might be worth calling to find out.  

I have a problem with people callng this fraud big time (Not accusing you of saying that FTR) ... Its plain as day on his site that the merchandise purchase is considered a donation.  I am 100% sure everything is above board, but I do agree it should be communicated how that is counted... if only for the lesson on Election Law and strategy it affords us.  Maybe Jerome or a front pager or someone else with a blog could call and ask.  Since i don't have one, feel a little funny about asking.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 1)

I called.  The guy who answered was low level volunteer and didn't know although very friendly took my contact info and promised to get back.  I told him I was duing due diligence and hadn't picked a candidate (yes I lied but figured it would make a response more likely) and Obama is my senator (which is true).  Will do a diary if/when I get a response.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I think you just explained my question.  
If the donations are less than $2300 then sales count towards the donor number.
If a person has already donated $2300 then they are sent to a sales site.
This obviously is not illegal, but it makes comparing small donations not the same in all campaigns.
It is having it both ways.  Sales may or may not count as donations.
I now don't think this was a smart move.  The campaign didn't need to do that.  
There are sufficient donors without this to be way beyond the numbers of any other campaign.
This muddies the waters of how impressive Obama's numbers are.
Frankly I think this was a dumb move.  
Or I think they should have the numbers without sales available also.  
Instead of being impressed people are annoyed if not angry.
It isn't all about being right, it is how people now can make the campaign become defensive.
Although I am an Edwards supporter, I'm sorry to see this happen.
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha, I got to laugh at the doubters (3.00 / 0)

What is the likelihood that if you purchase Obama gear you're not a supporter? I mean realistically, it is very very very low. I've contributed several times over to the Obama campaign and have bought stuff from their store. I'd bet the other campaigns are wringing their hands at not being able to leverage donors like the Obama campaigns has successfully done.

And as for those $5 contributions, how else are the campaigns supposed to report those donations which add up to a big figure to the FEC? Edwards charges for his small change big change events, $10-$20, and of course they are counted as donors by the campaign.

The bigger question the doubters have to ask themselves is: Why has the Obama campaign been so successful with small donors? Obama raised $16 million from donations at $200 or below. That certainly is no small feat. It shows a campaign built on the strength of small donors.


by rosebowl on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:32:16 AM EST

Re: Ha, I got to laugh at the doubters (none / 0)

Most of Obama's money comes from big donors, heck that's true of everyone.  When you look at the percentages, there really isn't much of a difference between Edwards and Obama on small, medium and large donors.

And I think you might be missing the point during you're chuckles -- the Obama camp perposefully used "creative accounting" to increase their number of "donors."  Sure, the folks that bought a bumper sticker are "supporters," but they have not been called "donors" in any previous campaign.

There is some fraud in the Obama "movement."


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you call creative accounting (none / 0)

others call...Federal election law.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you call creative accounting (none / 0)

I don't know of a single campaign that has ever included "sales" as "donations."

Ken Lay would be proud.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you call creative accounting (3.00 / 0)

If Rupert Murdoch bought $100,000 worth of Hillary for President t-shirts, how should it be reflected on the campaign finance disclosure forms?


by Adam B on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you call creative accounting (none / 0)

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want EVERY one of our people to do this.  I'm sure someone who is an expert on Election law can clear the air on the merchandise aspects of this.  


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Phil! (3.00 / 0)

The FEC requires all campaigns to record merchandise sales as donations.  

Done and done.  


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Phil! (none / 0)

Would you mind citing reference for your statements? I am not disputing your facts only requesting something to back them up, like citing official FEC rules.


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Phil! (none / 0)

Sure, from the FEC site:

Fundraising Tickets and Items

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:56:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you call creative accounting (3.00 / 0)

By the way, what would you call giving a meal to a donor if not sales?  The difference is this is a bumper sticker or t-shirt to small donor instead of a meal to a large donor.  

And, your hero, John Edwards, certainly has spoken at plenty of meals.

So, what, exactly, is your problem?  Would you really be this upset if John Edwards had the ability to sell t-shirts profitably?


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am quite obviously not an Obama supporter... (none / 0)

but I think that his use of modern marketing techniques is brilliant, though it certainly stokes my cynacism a bit as it reminds me of the tactics of Reagan (at least from what I've read in media studies courses, and from the small bits that I can remember) and Clinton (who wasn't nearly as clever as Obama).

If you want someone to care about your campaign, get them to invest just a little, and they'll go long for you. People seem to think that buying a t-shirt is not a valid expression of support, but for a younger person it may be extremely important, as clothes seem even more tied into identity at a younger age.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha, I got to laugh at the doubters (none / 0)

Its only fraud if one attempts to hide it.  This isn't fraud at all.  I don't know if people are told its a donation at live events, but it is clear as day on his website.  That's not fraud... you may disagree with it (and I'm not sure why as ALL our candidates should do this), but calling it fraud is ridiculous.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's smarmy, but we we talk about "donors" we are comparing apples to oranges.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:43:06 AM EST

T-shirt sales as donations - they don't count? (none / 0)

It's odd to me that T-shirt sales, and the like, are not counted as donations by other campaigns. Does this mean you could max out at $2,300 and THEN purchase 200 T-shirts, giving another $4,000 to the campaign? Shouldn't that count as a donation? Sounds like a big loophole to me, if true.


by cms on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:43:16 AM EST

Re: T-shirt sales as donations - they don't count? (none / 0)

Or you could buy a bunch of $5 tickets to an event and hand them out for free to folks if they'll only sign the back of the ticket.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: T-shirt sales as donations - they don't count? (none / 0)

It doesn't work that way


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 10:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: T-shirt sales as donations - they don't count? (none / 0)

grasping at straws, phil


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I have an Edwards bumper sticker. I am not an Edwards supporter. But I do support what the bumper sticker says. I agree, all of the candidates should start using this gimmick.


by DoIT on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:00:39 AM EST

Jerome and the NYT (3.00 / 0)

Funny whenever anyone other than Clinton gains momentum some hit piece comes out.  I never heard any hit piece come out on Hillary questioning her credibility at the polls or the actual substance of what she was saying at the debates.

Before people come saying that Jerome's piece was objective look at the words he used to get you to think a certain way.  He said "concert-like events" to make you think rock star which supposedly has negative connotations in politics.  He quoted the NYT as saying "...to capitalize on his celebrity, Mr. Obama's campaign has also employed novel tactics", again pointing out the celebrity reference to undermine Obama's credibility as a politician.  He also uses the NYT's title, "NYT's, Obama's Camp Cultivates Crop in Small Donors" to show the word cultivate which suggests Obama did something underhanded to get the number of donors he has.

First and foremost, I question whether NYT has a pro Hillary bias (but that is my opinion) considering they just did the Obama punjab piece and were willing to disclose the Obama campaign as the source and not even question Clinton about the actual contents of the memo.  Nice spin for Clinton eh?

Second, Jerome is entitled to his opinions but has anyone ever questioned why Obama is the sole source of his frustration?

Finally, counting trinkets as donations in no way takes away from the legitimacy of the Obama campaign as a movement.  He still has drawn more people to his rallies than any other candidate.  He still has more on the ground volunteers than any other campaign.  He still raised more money than any other campaign.

I looked up the authors of that NYT piece and the only negative articles they wrote were about Obama and Edwards haircut situation.  Odd?


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:03:40 AM EST

Re: Jerome and the NYT (1.00 / 1)

Well, I'm not going to address the larger conspiracy issues, but I've commented relentlessly about Jerome's obsession with Obama.  As I've pointed out, there's even been unrelated posts of his that have taken digs at Obama.  But 90% of them seem to be focused on Obama.

I, for one, have no problem with critiques of Obama's campaign or any other.  I have criticized aspects of it myself.

But the problem is Jerome has no more credibility on the issue after his relentless and frequently dishonest "reporting" of Obama.  So it's impossible now to take anything he writes about Obama out of that light.

His non-stop "examination" of the Obama campaign does make you wonder whether there's more to the story.  I have no specific theories in mind (there was a long discussion of it over at DKos), but it's gotten ridiculous.

I would have much less problem with these posts if he just started each one with a disclaimer about his negative feelings towards Obama, so we'd know that his perspective is already biased.  It's that he pretends to be an honest observer that I find so odious.


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 11:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 4)

1. Donations: My daughter was one of the 10,000 who went to hear him speak at Oakland. Afterwards she bought t-shirts for me and my wife.  When I told her she shouldn't have, she said she wanted to donate to the campaign in some way and this was the least she could do.  At that time, she gave them her name and email address and checked that she would be interested in volunteering. As a result, she was contacted for the Walk for Change, participated, and registered 3 new voters.  I would like to know what part of this is somehow a bad thing.

2. Accounting: the issue raises the question not what Obama's campaign is doing but what are the others doing.  Obama is using merchandising as an outreach tool to build his rolodex of supporters.  He is handling this money as contributions within the law.  If others are not doing this, exactly how are they handling this money?  Where is the accounting of this money?

3. Movement: I find it very interesting that the ones who most object to using the word "movement" are often the most cynical about Obama and his supporters.  They question whether this new interest in politics will continue if Obama fails to get the nomination, and they do so in the most insulting way.  It's a self-fulfilling  prophesy.   I'm old enough to know a great deal of Progressive Politics are ruled by these type of old guard lefties who are so condescending they naturally turn off new people - which is often their intent.  I am sure that if Obama does not get the nomination he will do everything to inspire the "movement" to continue their activism.  Whether they actually do, beyond this one election, will be determined more by how the are treated by a lot of the voices you hear on this site than by anything Obama will be able to do himself.  Some people have made it very clear they don't welcome this new growth, that they are inauthentic, star-fuckers, rock & roll groupies, cult of personality worshipers.  How do you expect my 23 year old daughter to respond when she reads things like that?   If you want them to join the Progressive movement and keep acting the way many of you do, then you better add another description to the list.  Masochists.


by Doug Tuesday on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:10:40 PM EST

Really well said (none / 0)

thank you for saying it


by dansac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I keep a support pack in my car.
Several times a week people ask me about the Obama bumpersticker.
I then offer them a bumpersticker, a button, a volunteer form and a prepaid contribution envelope.
by parahammer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 01:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I couldn't have said it better myself.  The constant insults hurled at Obama supporters on this site are totally counterproductive to the aim of keeping the new people Obama has brought into the process. From my grassroots efforts for Obama in my own city, it would normally make me think that most Obama supporters would have a hard time supporting any other candidate who got the nomination, if I didn't realize that most of them don't read blogs and so are unware of the condescending attitude that many fellow progressive have towards them.  The world of MyDD and Daily Kos is not the real world.


"In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it." Barack Obama
by whitbreadale on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

"From my grassroots efforts for Obama in my own city, it would normally make me think that most Obama supporters would have a hard time supporting any other candidate who got the nomination."

So, from your description this is indeed a personality-based movement.  They would not carry over to supporting the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, if Obama has not been able to make his own case sufficiently to primary voters?   So, these people don't really care for the Democratic process, let alone the Democratic party, then?


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Please learn to quote correctly.

You did NOT quote a complete sentence, so inclusion of a period as if you did is inappropriate (and is, in fact, deceptive).

It was clearly a conditional statement which was already expanded upon in the segment which you improperly expunged.

If people knew how the dimwitted boneheads toss about 'walking on water' tripe to describe Obama's supporters' views, they would feel no desire to join in with such crap-flingers. But, luckily, as they don't participate online, they are unaware of such idiotic behavior.


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

What you find "missing" had no bearing on what I am discussing here (namely the obvious inference that many Obama supporters he encountered will vote for Obama or not at all.)  The second part of the sentence talked about the blogs, which has nothing to do with the initial statement I took issue with.   There is NOTHING deceptive about my quote, I was asking the poster about the Obama supporters he/she encounters outside of the blogs, after all.  


by georgep on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Of course it had bearing. It explained the CONDITIONS under which the first part of the sentence pertained.

Quote mining is an extremely low act (a favorite tactic of the dark-ager creationists, in fact).


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

Come on now!  You know good and well that the "it" in that sentence is in reference to all of the nasty things said about Obama supporters on some of the liberal blogs.  By the way, that was a nice touch, inserting a period where there wasn't one to change the meaning, as that would best suit your purpose of spreading the "personality-cult" meme.  Still, I feel kind of flattered that one of Hillary's more imfamous astroturfers on MyDD would take the trouble to totally distort one of my posts.

Let me put this in plain English so that my meaning is not misunderstood.  If you continually dump on a candidate's supporters and tell them how shallow and uninformed they are, that is not productive.  Telling people that you hope to see their candidate politcally destroyed, that said destruction is inevitable and that if they don't take some partisan blood oath in the wake of Hillary's inevitability, it will merely confirm all the nasty stuff being said about them on aforementioned liberal blogs....that is what I call unproductive.  The fortunate thing is that most people, even politically active types, don't read blogs so most of the mud flung in forums like this one won't influence their future activism for progressive causes one way or the other.

For reasons that many here don't understand, Obama inpsires people to get involved in the political process.  It is not a personality cult and it is not just about him as a candidate.  What Obama does is give them a sense of ownership of their own democratic process.  This fits in perfectly with his background as a community organizer. Just because people may be coming from a different place than you, it does not mean that their motivations should be suspect or that they should be insulted. If you really want the new people that Obama is bringing into the politcal process to stick around(and I'm not sure that you do), then lecturing them and insulting them is not the way to go.


"In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it." Barack Obama
by whitbreadale on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

What a bunch of whining by people that are either jealous of Obama's sucess or kicking themselves for not thinking up some of these ideas first.....
It's really getting pathetic.
Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:11:01 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (3.00 / 0)

I thought every campaign has to count the gear purchases?


by Newsie8200 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:37:46 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

No matter who wins, this is going to be very educational after we see how this all works out.

Does a broad base of deep support matter? Will it help you win an election? Or do you just need to convince enough TV watching drones with the right commercials?

We're gonna find out.


by Pope Jeremy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:44:08 PM EST

Here's why this argument is so stupid (none / 0)

From the campaign:
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/w ho_are_you_wearing_barack_oba.html?xid=r ss-swampland

"Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer says that people buying campaign paraphernalia (mostly t-shirts) account for "less than 1% of our donors"--or 2,580 out of the total donor base of 258,000. He also contends that more than half of those who bought items like t-shirts (which puts you on their e-mail list) subsequently gave to the campaign in the traditional way.

Pfeiffer also wrote in an e-mail sent around to reporters today that the campaign lists purchasers of its merchandise as donors because it is required to:

These purchasers are donors, and the law requires that we treat them as donors, which is indeed what they are and how their monies are used. There is no "trick" involved. People who support Obama would like something to show their support, a hat or T-shirt: this is a way that small donors in particular can show their support and still contribute to the campaign. Most of these donors have contributed again...and again. We are proud to have them. Campaigns that don't expect to have this level of interest among small donors tend to outsource their campaign material sales to vendors. For example, the Clinton campaign has contracted with Financial Innovations to sell their paraphernalia. Financial Innovations makes all of the profit from those sales and takes the loss if no one buys the materials. To our knowledge, the Obama Campaign, because of the tremendous grassroots enthusiasm, is the only campaign to feel they could generate sufficient interest in T-shirts and other materials to not contract with an outside vendor."

That's right: we've argued over 2,500 donors. less than half of 1% of the 258,000. Plus half of those people gave as actual donors too.

If someone wants to, feel free to take this info into a dairy so it's not buried at comment number 234.


by dpg220 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:44:03 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

This the kind of problem, and attention, that any candidate would die for.


by aiko on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 04:05:35 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

As a Clinton supporter I confess to being just a little jealous. Counting Obama Tschotchke Buyers as supporters is indeed ingenious if not a little tricky, or perhaps dodgy, or even dare I say slick. I imagine though all hell would have broken loose by now if this was a Hillary special with calls for a special investigator and reports to the electoral commission. Clever though it is, such campaign finance tactics are a  road map to abuse. Can you imagine this spanking new tool or rather tschotchke accounting method in the hands of the Republicans? Well done Mr. Obama.


by superetendar on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:01:56 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

As this is already clearly defined and allowed for in the FEC regulations, I hardly think that it's new or tricky or slick:

FEC Citizen's Guide

Fundraising Tickets and Items

Yet another way of making a contribution is to purchase a fundraising item or a ticket to a fundraiser. The full purchase price counts as a contribution. If you pay $100 for a ticket to a fundraising event like a dinner, you have made a $100 contribution (even though your meal may have cost the committee $30). Or, if you pay $15 for a T-shirt sold by a campaign, your contribution amounts to $15 (even though the T-shirt may have cost the committee $5).


by jacortina on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

This is a great front page piece Jerome. It gives us some good insight into why the "movement" is not translating into poll numbers and grassroots support as would be the case if there was a real movement.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:44:56 PM EST

Okay I see it now, this article is a bit slanted (none / 0)

...in it's descriptions and choice of words against Obama. Just a little though and anyone who frequents MyDD could spot the word choices.

As Jerome said, Brilliant. He's selling himself and people are buying. If that's not the same as donating I don't know what is.


by MNPundit on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:53:58 PM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

I have to admit I do not get where the skepticism comes from.  Let's turn the tables.  Who would the ideal candidate for president today be? Someone with one donor? Ten? One hundred? Someone who has donors despite himself? Someone who has been President already? Or is married to one? It's happenstance that Obama is in the U.S. Senate.  One less Republican scandal and we might never know who he was.  So much is made of the fact that he is inexperienced or not wise to the ways of Washington but I would contend that that is an asset.  I suspect we will not have such a regular Joe rise to prominence on a combination of luck and skill for some time to come.  For me Obama is not some manufactured candidate and I am sophisticated enough to see through the biopic campaign they are running for him.  I am just an ordinary person but I cannot for the life of me understanding the reservations the net roots has about Obama.  The best chance in a generation is staring you in the face.  I am not saying this because I am some schill for the Obama campaign, I am just some ordinary person in America who is so sick and tired of business as usual who would rather not have to worry about who is in the White House.  if there is no movement then i have been duped, if Obama is lying then his lies have an internal logic and consistency that is daunting, but if he is telling the truth then we have before us the very image of the future of the democratic party and perhaps the  left.  i am not saying everyone has to get on board--do what you will--i am just saying that the train is real.


by jcsylvan on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:46:56 AM EST

Re: How Obama got his 258K donor movement (none / 0)

And it's heading over a cliff. As for your invitation: thanks, but no thanks, I've been in a train wreck before.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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.