Obama's Concerts

Sasha Issenberg had written an article in the June issue of Boston Magazine that I was unaware of when recently writing about Obama's ability to get people to pony up for attending his campaign events. Most are aware that Obama has tapped into a well of high-dollar donor's that make the millions possible, but this is a good look at what's going on in Obama's fundraising world that's making those large number of donors possible:

IN MARCH, AT A RALLY IN CLEVELAND, Obama exhorted everyone in the crowd "to pony up $5, $10 for this campaign. I don't care how poor you are, you've got $5." Some in the national media took the line for a gaffe. Instead, the candidate may have been unintentionally revealing his finance strategy. Like Amway, it's about getting people to buy in--with the idea that once their dollars are committed, they will be, too. Ross is intimately familiar with the psychology at play. "When you get someone to write a check and then they actually go and hear and see the candidate," she says, "it's very difficult for them to back off from that."

As the April 20 event at Agganis Arena began, Obama bounced along a catwalk flanked by two big video screens and an American flag worthy of a Sun Belt car dealership. "How we doing, Boston?" he asked. "This is how we hold a fundraiser, right?"


Yea, it is. I'll disagree with the Obama campaign over whether their innovative fundraising success forms a legitimate basis from which to brag about having the largest/strongest/awesomest presidential campaign ever in presidential history (which is pretty much what Obama's campaign claims), but it does form the basis for a stellar fundraising movement. Getting into the details of a the Boston fundraising event, it's easy to see how this moves the donor numbers on a national scale:
Solomont counted the preliminary take from the event: A total of 5,700 tickets had been sold, bringing in over $700,000, including more than $100,000 from students alone.
$100K from students? That's unheard of before Obama, and really points to a breakthrough discovery by the Obama fudraising team-- well-to-do students with disposable income. They've created a network whereby one college individual will use their college network to make the sale on campuses across america. For the Boston event, there's 250 tickets sold by Mitch Robinson, a Tufts senior, "distributing them outside the library and in the dining hall", another Obama supporter "sold 118 tickets to her BU peers", and you get the idea.

Goodman noted that he had never been to a political rally. He leaned out and surveyed the crowd, filled with students who had lined up around the block to stake out a spot close to the stage, many of them wearing the main act's T-shirts--a green St. Patrick's Day "O'bama" edition was popular--and carrying signs bearing slogans such as "We Love You, Barack."


"It's amazing. It's like a U2 concert," he said. "Now all we have to do is get them all to vote."

I know there are some Obama fans that will moan and groan about how likening the Obama events to a concert is a criticism (to them I'm sure the more acceptable comparison would be church service), but it's been described as such by many now, and it is similar in how the tickets are marketed for the Obama event.

As for youth voting, I do not think that is really a factor that will be called into question too much, given the '04-'06 exit polling done that shows such an increase. More youth (18-29) than ever will in the general election for 2008, but their doing so in a democratic primary or caucus is probably debatable until it happens.



Display:


Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 0)

$100K from students? That's unheard of before Obama, and really points to a breakthrough discovery by the Obama fudraising team-- well-to-do students with disposable income.

How do you know they are "well-to-do"?  And what concert have you been to where the crowd is exhorted to pony up $5 or $10 bucks in the middle of it?  What would be so wrong writing a piece that was absent the sarcastic digs?  It might actually read better and give people at least the impression you weren't airing a personal grudge.


by DD2 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:05:52 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

Ya know, I am a big supporter of Obama, and I didn't take anyting personally negative from this piece. Jerome has the right to hold opinions other than "Obama is awesome we should all love him and anyone who doesn't sucks."

Now to your question about how does he know they were all well-to-do. He doesn't. But he was complimenting Obama's campaign. Speaking as someone who spent a lot of time on college campuses over the last few years I would agree with Jerome's assessment. There is a huge untapped resource pool in regards to college students with disposable income. And being as one of the schools mentioned was Tufts I would say it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those students were in fact fairly well off (or at least have parents who are.)


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Here's another awesome article about Barack Obama overtaking the "Net Roots". Great read.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur ghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_516225. html


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fundraising amongst students (3.00 / 0)

A lot of fundraising amongst students is convincing students themselves that they have a little disposable income and can collectively make a difference as donors. Students for Barack Obama, back before it was absorbed into the Obama campaign and was a PAC, raised money with pleas like 'Don't eat out this weekend and chip in ten dollars.' SFBO even had a page listing donations with their equivalent value: running from candy bar to case of beer to ipod --- encouraging students to pass up one to donate. It sounds hokie and not necessarily all that new, but it's probably effective.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

You ever been to a concert and bought a beer or soda or hotdog or T-Shirt?  You're exhorted a heck of a lot more than $5-10/


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

It cost about $20.00 alone just to enjoy a Movie. popcorn, soda , those almond thingies, goobers, rasinettes, junior mints......


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

While it's easy to look the methods he using for fundraising with a highly critical eye, it's much harder to do the same for the candidates that are raising money in darkened rooms filled with the extremely wealthy corporate donors. These events don't sound much different than what happens at mega-church rallies, but there is two ways of looking at the donations. 1. they donate because they valued the entertainment provided for them or 2. donations are given because they want the candidate (or party) to win.
by soros on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 04:24:31 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

You must know that Obama raises money the old fashioned way as well-right?  There are lots of dark, smoke filled rooms in Chicago-


by Menemshasunset on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 12:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$5 (none / 0)

Pols can be so out of touch sometimes.  Obama's comment, "...I don't care how poor you are, you've got $5" reminds me of when a pol doesn't have a clue about the price of bread or milk.

There are a lot of people who there who don't have a dime to spare, let alone a fiver for Obama's campaign.  There are people out that there that can't afford their meds or proper nutrition.


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:19:48 AM EST

Re: $5 (3.00 / 2)

well, in that case,don't hand out the $5,simple.....It's Obama priority to make just he makes the ask.

What i like about the Obama campiagn is that they have by far the most exited grassroots that are willing to do much more then show up at the poll to cast their one vote.

A guy that's willing to shell out $5 is more likely to not only show up to vote, but to get friends and family members to support and vote for Obama.

This is key for Obama....Someeone that only have time to vote and nothing else is less likely  to show up or get involve in any type of stuff that could help the camapaign.

Hillary's grassroots is very dull....They are low info low income voters and those voters aren't that big on politics but tries to vote every election cycles,but aren't willing to shell out any money to politicians....Those voters are also easily sway by winners.....If Hillary does not do good in the eraly primary/caucus states, those are the kind of voters that will jump on the winner's bandwagon because they tend to go along with the media's perspective.


by JaeHood on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $5 (3.00 / 4)

Here's what David Sirota -- no friend to the Obama campaign -- has said about that:

[T]here is another model that very few people talk about - the one where lots of working people give lots of small dollar contributions. People like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) have been doing this for years. Howard Dean did it in his presidential primary run. It's a much harder path, of course, because it's much harder to organize lots of people than it is to organize a few wealthy fat cats. But in the absence of public financing of elections, campaigns that try to rely on lots of little contributions are the next closest thing to a small-d democratic election system....

  Groups like Moveon.org are flipping [the] smoky backroom model on its head, gathering a very large group of contributors who each give just a little bit. Such a model doesn't require regular folks to cough up hundreds of dollars. On the contrary, if millions of people kicked in $5 or $10 we might have a whole different country. Getting more people to contribute small sums of money to political causes will require a change in mindset. As political fundraiser Chris Gruwell says, we need to look at political giving in the same way we look at the basket that comes around at our place of worship. We chip in what we can, no matter how modest, because we believe in the charity work that our money funds. That is the way we need to think about supporting good people running for office, because government can have as big if not bigger effects on society than almost any other institution.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $5 (none / 0)

There are a lot of people who there who don't have a dime to spare, let alone a fiver for Obama's campaign.

I call BS. Poor people are not helpless. They have fewer choices than rich people, but they are not powerless when it comes to money. "Not a dime to spare" is out of touch.


by Kuz on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Get in touch (none / 0)

Read up on the working poor.  The ones who work at Denny's and live in their car, or take 1/2 or 1/3 doses of their meds because they can't afford to take them as prescribed.  Read up on the ones that work 3 jobs a week to sopport kids on minimum wage.


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really think...? (3.00 / 2)

Those are the people at Obama rallies that he was talking to?

Please, no lectures.


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get in touch (none / 0)

That's a fair point, but there is no harm in asking.  I've been out of work and called with charity or political donor requests and had to say no... but I had no issues with being asked.  

In fact, during those times in my life where I had little money to live on (sometimes $20 a week for food and gas after all other bills were paid), I still tried to give something if I could... and at those times, being able to give even $5 meant a LOT more to me as a person than anytime I have given $100 when I have money.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get in touch (none / 0)

Well, these people are dismissed by Obama supporters as 'low information' voters. Hillary polled extremely well in this demographics. I doubt these people have the luxury to donate anything to Hillary.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:58:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $5 (none / 0)

DPAndrews, would you rather he only asked for money from rich people?  Are you equally concerned about small donors for other campaigns?  I agree the wording isn't great, but Obama's point - that small donors can make a difference - is.


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $5 (none / 0)

and keeping that $5 isn't the solution to those problems--electing someone who wants to save families $2500/year on health care/provide insurance to those not covered, who wants to expand the EITC and increase the minimum wage, protect unionization rights, etc etc etc

i'd argue that donating $5 to a Democratic candidate isn't such a bad bet after all


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 06:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

There are a variety of fundrasing tools that Obama is using. Why hasn't anyone mentioned the "Sacrificing Beer, Pizza for a Cause" campaign on College Campuses?

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/15/ob ama_taps_youth_to_help_make.php


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:52:42 AM EST

Pizza ...maybe (3.00 / 1)

But beer?  That is asking A LOT!


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:21:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pizza ...maybe (none / 0)

LOL


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:25:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (1.50 / 2)

Yes - I posted about this very issue yesterday.
Get people to buy in early via pole dancing and hope - when Obama has released few policy statements and specific solutions.
And yet while Obama uses Paris Hilton type PR and marketing strategies - his supporters criticize the Edwardses for raising money in response to Coulter's evil remarks about their family.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:55:48 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 2)

Wow.  You really have no objective point of view any more, given that Edwards himself has adopted the low-dollar live rally technique for his own campaign.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:36:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Yes - Edwards' rallies were free while Obama was charging $25 or more.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Nope. They were $ 15.00. BTW, wasn't that the same amount he charged those poor college kids to give a speech on ....Poverty ?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Nope!  Once again - Edwards rallies were free - while Obama was charging $25 or more. LATER - Edwards began the "small change for big change" rallies.

Here's the facts for your rightwing attack:
Edwards' didn't set the fee for the university - but was negotiated - and apparently the university thought his speech to college students on poverty was beneficial.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

LOL

Okay. It doesn't matter anne. I am not the one who has a problem with raising money. You are. Unless, its Edwards raising the money. It's okay for Edwards to cash in on sympathy by taking the addresses from those who wrote Elizabeth Edwards well wishes on her cancer , and then turn around and ask them for money for his Presidential Campaign. It's only okay for Edwards to seek sympathy and cash in on playing the victim when Ann Coulter mentions his name. It's okay for John Edwards to make people pay money for a Pecan Pie Recipe, but Barack Obama ? Oh, no. How dare him. How DARE that man ask for money. Shame on the brutha! Shame !

LOL


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Once again - you've twisted my comments.
I was merely correcting you - that Edwards rallies were FREE - while Obama was charging $25 or more!

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Gee, Anne, who negotiated the speaker's fee?  (I'll give you a hint: Edwards' speaking agent.)


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards was NOT a candidate... (none / 0)

and it a misrepresentation to make the comparison as a result.


by citizen53 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 02:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was NOT a candidate... (none / 0)

I'm not making the comparison; just correcting Ms. Frank's sense of reality.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 07:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Um, no.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

exactly.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

There is a youtube of that moment when Obama asks his audience to "pony up" five or ten bucks.  He was not talking to affluent people; they were the very opposite.

I found it offensive.  And yes, this gives Obama high numbers of donors.  It might also explain why his poll numbers do not reflect his huge number of donors.

Thanks Jerome.  I knew if I posted a comment about this, it would be disputed by Obama supporters here, so I'm glad you put it out there.

I support Hillary, and I most certainly cannot imagine her asking her audiences to "pony up five bucks".


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:04:06 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

no she doesn't ask them to pony up, she just panders to them that she will fight for them and then will abandon them if elected (much in the same way she abandoned Wal-Mart employees when she was on Wal-Mart's board of directors)


by True Independent on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:18:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

What a stupid comment.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 3)

So would you find it offensive if he only asked affluent people to give money?  Something tells me you'd criticize him for being a slave to corporate donors.  So...getting money from affluent people bad...asking for small amounts from non-affluent, grass-roots people bad...what's a candidate to do?  


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Roll over and let her candidate just have the nomination.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:02:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Why did you find it offensive?


by Kuz on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 2)

The real question though is are you offended because you have no money, or are you offended because you don't like Obama and support Hillary?  If she made the same ask, would it honestly offend you?  I just question your objectivity on this one.  His asks at events OBVIOUSLY did not alienate too many of the people there... and I've noticed the majority of people objecting are supporting other candidates.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

actually, i made the point before. An AP poll showed Hillary outpolled Obama among low-income voters by an astonishing margin. Do you really believe these working family people will go online to donate to any candidate? But they do vote!

Obama is all fluff. This bubble eventually will burst.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:04:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

That polling item needs to be evaluated in context.  You've failed to account for the difference in name recognition among these voters.  Clinton enjoys far, far higher name recognition at this point.  Many lower income/"lower information" voters still don't know who Barack Obama is.  There are still seven more months to introduce Obama to voters.


by WWI2008 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

"Many lower income/"lower information" voters still don't know who Barack Obama is."

I find this comment unfounded. As much hype as the MSM and the netroots have given him I am would be surprised if aboriginal Australians didn't know who he is.


by DoIT on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

I can't cite my sources, but I've seen polling to back up my assertion.  And people who don't have TVs or computers sure as heck don't know what the netroots is, let alone what the netroots are talking about.


by WWI2008 on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The data says otherwise. (none / 0)

At least the data from about six weeks ago.

Despite Campaign, Familiarity With Candidates Has Not Changed Substantially (May 24 '07)

"Name identification" is defined for the purposes of this analysis as the percentage of adult Americans who know enough about the candidate to be able to give an opinion of him or her.

Clinton - 98%
Edwards - 81%
Obama - 75%

PEW RESEARCH CENTER - JUNE 2007 POLITICAL SURVEY (pdf)

Next, I'm going to read you a list of some people who have been in the news lately. Not everyone will have heard of them. For each one that I name, please tell me whether or not you have heard of this person.

Clinton - 99%
Edwards - 87%
Obama - 85%

Considering the difference in the question ('heard of them' vs. 'know enough about them'), the sets of numbers seem fairly consistent.

Note that the numbers say that fully one third of those who don't support Obama don't know enough about him to have an opinion (close to 25 out of 100 support him; the 25 who don't know him well enough have to come out of the other 75).

Also from PEW RESEARCH CENTER - JUNE 2007 POLITICAL SURVEY (pdf), Some 36% have given little (20%) or no (16%) thought to presidential candidates so far. Just 29% have given a lot of thought. And just who have such 'low information' respondents named in polls (considering 'Undecided' hasn't polled near to 36% in the polls I've seen and I doubt people are likely to name someone they haven't heard of)?


by jacortina on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 03:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

>>>>>I support Hillary, and I most certainly cannot imagine her asking her audiences to "pony up five bucks".

Exactly!  Murdoch merely asks corporatists to pony up $5 MILLION for Hillary!
and - viola! the deed is done.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

Obama's neoliberalism allows him to rake in the $$$ from rich donors, including people who were recently K-Street lobbyists will soon be again, lobbyists' spouses, and big corporate players who, let's just say, aren't drawn to him because of his inspiring life story. Meanwhile his ban on taking $$$ from PACs and federal lobbyists (much at odds with his K-Street whoring when he first got to DC) allows him to claim purity. And meanwhile his huge donor base--much of which, as Jerome suggests, is the softest of soft support--enables to claim he's running the greateast grassroots campaign in history. It's not top-down or bottom-up, it's both, but the media, by a large, will buy the grassroots narrative, and the more this story gets told, the more people think there's a huge movement, the more people want to be a part of it.

Just as Obama is selling the idea of hope, rather than a program that would actually provide hope, just as he's asking people to unite around the idea of unity, he's creating the perception of a movement. But Obama understands that in politics, as in life, perception has a way of becoming reality. If Obama keeps saying that his is a people-powered movement, and the press keeps buying it, then people will want to be a part of it.

And a good portion of these people who give a few dollars to Obama and see him speak will become true-blue supporters. I buy the buy-in idea, especially where there's a salesperson as skilled as Obama. Thousands upon thousands of people really dig the guy. I just had dinner with a pretty famous liberal journalist who told me that although he knows Edwards is more progressive, he's gonna vote for Obama cause he just digs him. He likes the way Obama makes him feel, and that's another thing that Obama understands: people like to feel good.

How much of that support is solid, and how much of that solid support will organize and vote, and how effective their organizing and voting will be compared to, say, the organizing and voting of, say, the union activists who will support Edwards are all open questions. My hunch is thay if Obama stays strong till the big states like California, where organizing is less important, he'll win, but that his meta-movement might not be able to prevail in the early primary states, where organizing and actually going to to the polls are everything.


by david mizner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:10:41 AM EST

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (3.00 / 1)

David, do you really need me to go through the FEC reports to pull up all the law firms which contain lobbying shops from which Edwards has received thousands in donations?  It's a nice-sized list, in fact, and your attempts to purity-troll this are silly.

[As you know, Edwards was able to self-finance his only Senate race; Obama did not have that luxury.]

But here's the real question: if $2300 checks are signs of being beholden to evil interests, and $5 contributions are "soft support," then whose money is meaningful?


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (2.00 / 0)

Purity troll? Wow, you're more a sphere-head than I thought. Me, I don't care for the blogospheric cliches, especially those designed to stifle debate.

Sure, Edwards has some big funders--where did I say he didn't? That said, there's no question that Obama is running on a platform that's more friendly to corporate interests and his donations reflect that. And we'll see whether Obama takes positions that benefit his small donors at the expense of his big donors.

Andit also remains to be seen if Edwards's small change for big change donors can be converted into hard support.

As for your direct question, small donors are better than big ones, but money per se isn't not meaningful, it's corrupting, and it's a disgrace that fundraising totals have become an important gauge of the state of the race. Big donations still drive the race; if Edwards or Obama had decided not to take $4300 checks their campaigns would be declared dead. I applaud Obama for supporting public financing, but there's something more than a little ironic about a candidate who says he wants $$$ to be taken out politics at the same time his campaign sings of its glories.


by david mizner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

That's not entirely true with respect to Obama as , I know you are fully aware, only 1 million of the 32 million is for the GE. So, if you took that out, Obama would probably still be the top of the fundrasing. We will know for sure next week. You are absolutely right, though, that it's not about the money. The Obama Campaign has been tyring to drive that point all along. It's the Media who focuses on the money. Not Obama. Obama has always stressed the importance of the people over the money and its been well documented on his website. So, I am not frustrated with the Obama Campaign just because the Media can't stop talking about the money. While 32 Million is great, 350,00 donors is more impressive and as an Obama supporter, that's what I am more excited about.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:23:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

One could just as easily argue that Obama's campaign was more friendly to the needs of the poor and working class and students, and that his contributions reflect that.

You need money to win.  Obama, unlike Edwards, can't draw on personal millions if the numbers start running low, and unilateral disarmament is silly.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you back this up? (3.00 / 0)

"there's no question that Obama is running on a platform that's more friendly to corporate interests and his donations reflect that."

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I'd like to see a breakdown of each candidate's fundraising numbers and what fraction of it was "friendly to corporate interests."

To wit, I visited opensecrets.org which tracks the fundraising. They don't have the 2Q numbers available yet, but here's a 1Q comparison of Obama and Edwards per industry from the site: http://www.opensecrets.org

...................................Obama .................Edwards  &nbs p;
1Q total......................25,797,721... %...14,031,662...%
Casinos/Gambling......2,800...........0. ....6,900............0
Commercial Banks.....180,780.......1.....100,350... ....1
Computers/Internet....207,935.......1... ..51,250.........0
Education....................696,076.... ...3.....140,300.......1
Health Professionals..357,417.......1.....152,8 00.......1
Insurance....................88,598..... ....0.....46,500.........0
Lawyers/Law Firms....2,915,234....11...5,029,360...3 6
Lobbyists....................33,909..... .....0....10,200.........0
Oil & Gas...................31,300..........0. ...14,650.........0
Pharmaceuticals/
    Health Products.....    51,950..........0.....4,400..........0
Real Estate................    611,635........2.....310,900......2
Retired.....................     1,393,791.....5.....492,100......4
Securities & Invest....1,394,791.....5.....497,150... ...4
Telephone Utilities.....40,650..........0.....8,90 0..........0
Tobacco.......................4,600..... ......0......0................0
TV/Movies/Music......690,735.......3.... ...287,675.....2

Sorry about the format (not sure how to post a table here), but the percentage figures are the important ones, and ignoring 0's and 1's we have that Edwards raised over 3 times more from Lawyers/Law Firms than Obama, while Obama raised roughly three times as much from the Education industry, 50% more from TV/Movies/Music industry and 25% more from Retired and from Securities & Investment each.

In my opinion that doesn't make Obama's money significantly more corporate friendly than what Edwards raised.

Maybe there's a better measure of corporate friendly money which will make your point, or maybe the 2Q figures will show a starker contrast, but right now I just don't see it.


by End game on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you back this up? (none / 0)

I am not sure but I think the reference is to policies and word choice, but again I am not sure.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you back this up? (3.00 / 0)

Here's a clearer representation:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The number are from opensecrets.org, which I copied/pasted into an Excel sheet.


by End game on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can you back this up? (none / 0)

EMPLOYEES


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

Adam - Edwards doesn't accept donations from Washington or federal lobbyists! and has NEVER received PAC donations.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

What's the difference between a "Washington" and a "federal" lobbyist, exactly?  Because Obama doesn't accept funds from lobbyists or PACs either.

Again: Edwards self-financed more than $6,000,000 of his 1998 race, back when that was a lot of money.  He could afford to be pious.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

Don't worry,Obama is quietly organizing his grassroots and by the time we get to caucus night,our grassroots will grow 10fold.

Obama is still opening up offices in Iowa and he's gaining more support everyday.

Obama is also training die hard supporters through a program called "camp obama"..They has a session yesterday and from what i'm hearing,they are getting hundreds of application every week....Those are the folks that are willing to travel to other states to help out....This support is priceless.


by JaeHood on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (2.00 / 1)

It is. I'm so excited about it too. If Obama wasn't a serious candidate and poised to win the Democratic Nomination, I don't think there would be such attention and criticism. I mean, the Media isn't analyzing Hillary or Edwards half as mush as they are Obama. The obsession with him proves that he is a force to be reckoned with. I just heard a pundit assert that the only reason why Hillary appears to be doing better in the polls among Democrats only is because Barack Obama refuses to be a partisan and refuses to take cheap shots at his rivals. That's hilarious because that's one of the reason why I and 350,000 other Americans like him. When those Independents who are majorly anti-partisan start registering as Democrats to vote for Barack Obama in the primaries, watch those poll numbers ....... watch those poll numbers. Ha Ha !


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a clueless comment (none / 0)

the Media isn't analyzing Hillary or Edwards half as mush as they are Obama.


by david mizner on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:19:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a clueless comment (none / 0)

Why?

Back it up if that's a clueless comment. Post links that show where the Media obsess over Hilary and Edwards donor lists. I'll check back.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a clueless comment (3.00 / 1)

Why should he back up or disprove something you wrote- shouldn't you back up your claim>?


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a clueless comment (none / 0)

Here's mines. OBSESSION OVER MONEY!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q =Barack+Obama+Money+race


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a clueless comment (none / 0)

Thank you. And I don't necessarily agree because I've seen enough press over the last few months to know how it tilts in a general way. For the most part its been postive to Obama (people like him kind of pieces), horse race with HRC (meaning not really all that negative or positive at least to me, but more who is hillary and will she win) and faux pas gotcha moments with Edwards (the haircut etc).

Of the three, the worse has been Edwards because its really idiotic to read about the same tactics that by they way they have used against every Democrat for a long time. Peo like me press coverage can be overcome by one's own actions. Faux pas gotcha moments can not. Why? Because no one is perfect, and if someone wants to see a gotcha moment they will.

Remember Slick Willie? Remember Gore the fibber? The whole claim that where they said "Gore says he invented the internet."

This haircut and house thing and the hit piece by the NY times are time tested hits on all Democrats- that's why I think anyone using them should realize that they are next with that kind of reporting because it plays on the same themes that have always been used - the Democrats aren't real because caring isn't real unless you fit into the media's narrative of caring. ie, by their definition FDR (and some people here who buy into the media narratives) isn't real because all the things they say about Edwards could have been said about FDR.

It fits into - the Democrats can't be trusted meme. That the GOP is the party of downhome authenticity (Bush on the ranch he bought in 2000 right before he ran for Prez), and the Democrats are the party of elites (Kerry playing an elite sport, Edwards paying for an expensive haircut,all of shit is the exact same meme that even too many Democrats by into). Many here who play into that I don't trust Edwards crap - I shoke my head because fundamentally what they aren't trusting are the narratives presented to them. That's why this press to me has been extremely posionous because it says these tricks still work on the left, and what's more there are those willing to allow them to continue to work so long as they can gain temporary traction that way.

Obama can recover from people like him process piece because they aren't really deep down saying anything about Obama. HRC can recover from horserace peice for the same reasons. But, Edwards- its harder- because still to this day peo will post ' I like Edwards ideas, but I don't trust him.

When asked why- most of it is fairly flimsy. He voted for the Iraqi war, and now is against it kind of stuff. Flimsy because judging any of these candidates by that standard (including Obama who yes didn't vote for the war, but has voted for funding) means we wouldn't have any candidates. I know- Obama is your guy- but anyone honestly evalutating any other candidate must look at their own candidate's flaws to see how well they stack up. On this issue, they are all (well except HRC who won't even admit a mistake) to me pretty much on par.

Indeed the war argument is about the strongest argument that can be made, and then you get into some further streteches- so what's fueling it? One of the things that I've learne is that we are all subsceptible to media influence even when we think we aren't. The idea that we have heard for 30 years or so- certain narratives- like the Democrats are the party of the elite, and that then when we hear Edwards had a 400 dollar hair cut that this wouldn't emotional affect us (although the haircut has nothing to do with policy or character) is kind of unrealistic.

I also don't think the defense is to do none of those things. I don't think a politician needs to take a vow of poverty and nor do I think its a good idea to approach politics from defensive posturing about what te press will drive as their meme (remember Kerry going hunting in 2004? or Dukakias in the tank?).

This has been an extended post as to the issue of media coverage. Sorry it was so long, but it's one of those topics that I don't think people fully appreciate.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a clueless comment (none / 0)

by teh way- stop misusing the rating system. It's not here for you to down rate simply because you disagree with someone. It's here if someone is being distruptive etc- my asking you to prove your claim isn't in anyway a correct usage so please stop doing that


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a smart strategy--maybe (none / 0)

"I just had dinner with a pretty famous liberal journalist who told me that although he knows Edwards is more progressive, he's gonna vote for Obama cause he just digs him. He likes the way Obama makes him feel, and that's another thing that Obama understands: people like to feel good."

Yes, drugs make you feel good too but they don't necessarily cure your ills.

"Just as Obama is selling the idea of hope, rather than a program that would actually provide hope, just as he's asking people to unite around the idea of unity, he's creating the perception of a movement. But Obama understands that in politics, as in life, perception has a way of becoming reality. If Obama keeps saying that his is a people-powered movement, and the press keeps buying it, then people will want to be a part of it."

The Obama "movement" sounds an awful lot like a cult of personality.


by DoIT on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:17:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ground Hog Day ? (none / 0)

You have been posting this exact same comment on other blogs for almost three days now. Poor thing.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pony Up! (none / 0)

Here is the video of Obama asking his audience to "pony up"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGxzqwRJU zM


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:10:56 AM EST

Re: Pony Up! (none / 0)

Dang!  I didn't realize it was that bad.
Reminds me of T.D. Jakes and Elmer Gantry!
Sad.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pony Up! (none / 0)

Oh , now we want to talk about "Preachy"? I know JUST how you feel about that.

It's disgusting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLHxja43 iY&mode=related&search=


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

"I don't care how poor you are" (Obama)


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:23:39 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 0)

He was talking to a group of college students - not folks at a homeless shelter.  It is dishonest to ignore the context.


by AdamSmithsHand on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Yes - and some of those "college students" are BALD HEADED!
LOL

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:30:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

True. All they have to do is go to the nearest ATM, withdraw a fiver and they're in.


by Nelsons on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:46:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

I find the nay saying rather amusing. (sigh) . We only have SIX more months to go till we start seeing the results of all the campaigning. We will see just who's "analysis" was correct and who was just spinning. We will see if voters that we seem to have no faith in come through in the end. We will see if the poll number are correct. We will see if all it takes is Iowa. Six more months. I'm still excited. I hope everyone else is.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:35:20 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 2)

I find this whole circus rather amusing.

The majority of the politically involved people in this country, and WHO SHOW UP TO VOTE in the greatest numbers, are Baby Boomers and older. And for a lot of us, our candidate isn't even in the "game" yet. Six months is a long time.


by SusanCLE on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:17:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Six months actually , goes by pretty darn fast if you are active. It's nothing. We are in the race. No more "It's too early" talk. It's time and I know you have faith in the Baby Boomers, but as Jerome pointed out in Diary above, that assertion that they are the only ones who will play a major role in this election is just not as strong as it used to be.

For one, when my generation is dismissed as the Youth, people automatically think 18, 19 and 20 year olds. But at the same time , they refer to the Youth as anyone who is not in the Baby Boomer Generation. They don't seem to realize that when you dismiss generation after generation for 20 years , you get two more powerful generations that outnumber the Baby Boomers.

What people continue calling the Youth are , in fact, Americans who are 40 years old and younger. Don't tell me we are not going to vote. We are and this time, we will not ignore our younger generations who are of college age. We are bringing them with us. See, our Generation doesn't write off the Youth. So, the Baby Boomers will have some competition at the polls. Watch.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (1.00 / 2)

Nobody is "writing off" youth. But facts is facts, and there are more of us old folks than you think. And we vote.


by SusanCLE on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Gen X still outnumbers Boomers and we are realizing that as each election goes by. Here's an interesting read for you.

http://kitode.typepad.com/in_situ/2006/0 6/generation_x_ou.html


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (3.00 / 1)

Maybe I'm just another "moaning and groaning" Obama supporter, but Jerome's pattern of posting has now entered the world of the ridiculous.  Okay, he doesn't have to be objective and it's his blog.  But the fact that even an iota of fairness is out the window is something that, as commenters, we can at least point out.

Let's criticize Obama for having 250,000 donors.  How do we do that?  We attack him for selling tickets to his "concerts" (something, by the way, all candidates have been doing for years, including Jerome's ray of purity, John "Can-Do-No-Wrong" Edwards).  Hell, I paid to go see Kerry in 2004.  

So, it's soooo wrong that students for Obama sold to fellow students.  Well, did they tell them they were going to a Linkn Park concert and then, surprise!, it's an Obama fundraiser?  Are those other students mindless fools who didn't know what they were doing?  I worked in youth marketing for a few years, and college students these days are remarkably sophisticated and fickle, and won't pay for a thing unless they want to.

But despite the obvious points that there's no way to raise $32 million from 250,000 people by holding these "concerts" alone, what is the problem?   That passionate people are willing to pay to see a Democratic candidate?  Is your contention that they were bamboozled into paying to see Obama?  Or that there's some problem with it?

Question for Jerome: is John Edwards' fund-raising pure?  Could there be anything remotely "concern-worthy" about what he's doing?  How many of these posts have you put up about him?  

Look, Obama isn't perfect, and I'm still evaluating the field (though leaning in his direction).  But to see a prominent blogger supposedly committed to a reality-based world continually post these "concerned" posts about Obama and slavishly uncritical posts about Edwards is getting preposterous.  

Obama can't be doing everything wrong.  How about a post that says, "like him or not, it's a great thing to have so many passionate people supporting a Democratic candidate."


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 08:57:39 AM EST

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

I understand what you are saying, but it is what it is and Jerome can make any analogy he pleases on his website. There's no fighting that and there's no sense in trying anymore. Like I stated above, if Barack Obama wasn't poised to win the Democratic Nomination, no one would be paying attention. No one. Just remember, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of the facts and making their own analysis. Take it for what it is. When Barack Obama wins the Democratic Nomination, then it won't matter. Did you really think it would be easy? Did you really think he would just sail right on through without fierce opposition? Did you really think that? Of course you didn't. That was rhetorical. We are doing fine so far in this race. We are only getting better so, why worry ? Keep the Champagne chilled because we are going to have a party. LOL. Besides, I think it's funny that people think I'm a professional corporate business executive . Don't you?


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 09:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

Well...I am a professional corporate business executive...or at least a senior manager, and I'm proud of my work.   But, anyhow - I'm not one to pop any corks for Obama yet.  I still believe that Hillary is most likely to win, but we'll see what happens.

And as for Jerome, it is what it is of course, I just feel a commenter's duty to point it out.  That he writes these posts as "news analysis" is ridiculous, and everyone of these posts gets progressively sillier.   Again, he will post as he sees fit, and I'll keep pointing out the silliness.


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

Oh, absolutly. You are entitled to that. I'm just pointing out that I don't lose any sleep over them and neither should you.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

You're right, but I've always been a little too "outspoken" for my own good :)


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

Dansac - here's a good example of Hillary and Obama playing their supporters.
See - pole dancing and Mafia videos are more important than Edwards lead on climate change. But hey - how many Hillary and Obama supporters have even heard of Grist??

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/ 07/06/candidates/index.html


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:41:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

Every time you post about pole-dancing, you make yourself out to be a sillier and sillier person.  

Although your entire post was an insult to your fellow Democrats who happen to support Hillary or Obama, I won't take your horrendous attitude, ranom musings about pole-dancings, or ignorance on the facts (for instance, that both have been aggressive on global warming - I'm no Hillary supporter, but she led the Senatorial delegation to Alaska to prove to them that global warming is real) to be representative of all Edwards supporters.


by dansac on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Fair-Minded Post by Jerome (none / 0)

I didn't really have a problem with Jerome's post on Obama.  Some of his past ones have been a bit insulting but not this one.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yo, Jerome! (none / 0)

What's wrong with poor people feeling invested in change?  Yes, Jerome, $5 for a piece of empowerment and participation in the democratic process is worth, well, at least a couple of welfare checks - especially as a longer, termed investment.

Or maybe the poor should keep thinking that they're better "kept" by those who currently hold the power.


No Quacks, please.
by noquacks on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:06:04 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (3.00 / 1)

This isn't directed specifically at baby boomer Obama because I don't know if he's a millionaire, but if the shoe fits:

I find it appalling that millionaire politicians ask me for money. If they really need the money for their campaigns, let's see them put $1-5 million of their own bucks in first, THEN they can ask me to contribute.


by Nelsons on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:16:03 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Romney has already lent his campaign about $10M; no one else has.  Edwards and Giuliani could do it from their own money, Clinton and McCain via their spouses.  Obama's income is between 500K and 1.1M, so, no way.


by Adam B on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:46:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's flowers - but not for Gennifer (none / 0)

or - they can do like Hillary and run for prez while they're running for re-election to the senate.

http://ledux.blogspot.com/2006/11/hillar y-clinton-is-biggest-spender-in.html
Not so for Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported sending a $6,585 check to Flutterbyes for flowers in Las Vegas, $5,397.50 to Le Petit Gourmet Catering in Glendale, Colo., and $80,000 to Tavern on the Green in Manhattan...

The chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Michael E. Toner, said only a handful of Senate candidates had ever spent more.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Obama is sending a message that he wants and needs the support of real, often marginalized people.  On the other hand, every time Hillary announces a new, big name endorsement, the message is: I have the establishment, I don't need you.


by howardpark on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:18:02 AM EST

Re: Obama's Concerts (1.00 / 1)

How ironic that statement is, considering it's people like Obama who have caused others to become marginalized.


by Nelsons on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:24:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

How, in the world, has Obama caused anyone to be marginalized?  I'm referring to groups of voters who are not taken seriously by the party establishment, primarily young people and African-Americans.  Are you referring to other candidates or otther potential candidates who are not running because Obama has emerged as THE alternative to Sen. Clinton?


by howardpark on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

I found the same comments rather puzzling myself.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

I wasn't referring to voters, but to marginalized people. By definition, anyone who has been in elected office over the past few decades has helped marginalize millions of our fellow citizens. I personally don't feel marginalized, because I've studied US history beginning with the early part of the 20th century and learned that from an economic standpoint (economics being the basis for marginalization) the worst thing a person can do is to get themselves mired in debt if it can be avoided, and usually - though not always - it can be avoided. Our elected officials over the past 20 years have done little to help people see what a mistake personal debt is, and in fact have enabled corporations to prey on people who don't realize the longterm impact of their decisions.

Plus, didn't Obama attend Harvard, which could only be described as "exclusive." Exclusive means it excludes. Elitist. See what I mean? Obama goes around the country acting like he wants to be the candidate that represents inclusion, yet look at what he's personally done to exclude others. I find it ironic.

I think he has a better shot at winning the primary than Edwards, because Edwards seems so phony, but what will someone like Obama actually accomplish if he were to get elected to the White House? Very little in my view, because people will anticipate that he will fix everything that's gone wrong during the past 25 years, which is an impossible task for anyone.


by Nelsons on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Obama won't win - but is another shiny new object to distract from John Edwards. And the corporate media has been successful providing viewers and listeners more information about Edwards' haircuts than Obama's Rezko and Hillary's poison Penn.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/be rman

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 11:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Right


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:25:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (none / 0)

Right


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 01:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Concerts (2.25 / 4)

John Edwards can never win the presidency. Everyone needs to wake up to that realization. When repugs play that awful Youtube video of him preening his hair for over two minutes and juxtapose that with "war on terror" sc