Hillary digs into her piggybank to the tune of $5 mil for campaign

money is important but not everything

this has been proven by the MAMMOTH amounts of personal cash romney has already lent to his campaign ($35 million), to no avail.  contrast that with mccranky's & the huckster's relatively low totals, and you see that raising a bazillion dollars does not mean it will buy you voter love.

as for clinton tapping out some big donors, well then she will move onto the small donors.  i'm guessing that there are as many blue-collar people voting for clinton in the primaries as are voting for obama.  after all, they say she gets the white women, old folks and "uneducated" white vote and much of the latino vote.  plenty of folks to draw on there, while obama keeps after the college students, rich white people and african-americans.

it's not over.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 20:55:04 PM CST

Apples & Oranges

Unlike Mitt, Obama is not trying to buy votes, and he doesn't have to. The difference between him and the rest of the pack is that he is a movement.. Unlike Hillary, the bulk of his money is coming in from average people not interest groups or wealthy donors trying to buy influence.
Case in point - My girlfriend and I have always followed politics, but neither of us have ever donated a penny to a politician or bothered to vote in a primary. That has all changed with Obama. We are not black, in college, or rich. We are just an average lezbo couple in our 30's - my girlfriend isn't even a citizen, therefore can't vote - and she is out talking up Obama to our friends and family. We find that most of them are pro-Hillary but don't have well thought-out reasons or explations for being so - it is all name recogniton or the simple fact that she is woman. Once people get exposure to him, see a few speeches, etc. they start to change their mind and get excited. Say what you want about Obama, but Hillary has not galvanized people the way he has.

---

by: HPRIC @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 23:05:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

buying votes

all candidates use money to advertise themselves.  romney isn't buying votes with his ads and bumper stickers any more or less than obama is.  if you want to believe that people donate to obama from a more pure place in their hearts, fine.  but obama is spending it in the same way as all the rest.  i mean, let;s be honest here.  he is running a campaign, not a campfire sing-along (although, campaign donations could be used to provide the marshmallows and cider for one, if you think it might buy persuade a few more voters his way...).

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 23:20:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Barak is awesome, Hillary is READY

I love to listen to Barak Obama.  I wouldn't mind at all if he were to be the Democratic nominee or even the president.  The trouble is, he's not ready.  It's going to take a tough, tested woman like Hillary Clinton to get this country back on the right track.  

I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.  That way, we could have 8 years of Hillary's tough ability to restore America, followed by 8 more of Barak's spirited leadership.

Let's go, Hillary!!

---

by: lampster @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 22:58:12 PM CST

Be serious, Pam!

"Can't they just be straight up with folks?"

Pam, that may be the single silliest sentence you've ever written.

OF COURSE NOT!

---

by: dr ngo @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:00:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it was tongue-in-cheek

That doesn't convey over the internets. :)

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:30:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not so sure

Early 30's white woman, also supporting Barack.  Not in college, etc.

I agree that Barack has built a base, financially and otherwise, that Hilary has not.  Interestingly, Hilary has been the No. 2 recipient (No. 1 was Rick Santorum) of donations from the health care sector.  Which kind of makes you wonder about the execution of her health care policy:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/1...

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354.

Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies.

---

by: June @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 23:19:03 PM CST

just curious

but was obama even in the u.s. senate at that time?  maybe clinton deserves scrutiny for the sources of donations she has accepted, but it is oh so easy to point fingers at people when you (obama) weren't even in the game at the time.  just like the iraq vote.  sure, it was courageous of him to publicly oppose it.  but he didn't have to vote one way or the other.  we will never know if he would have been so tough.  her certainly has been more of a wet noodle since he got into the senate.  anyone hear him speechify in favor of united enda, for example.  nope.  crickets.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 23:25:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

Experience used to count for something in this country.  But so many seem determined to elect Obama at any cost.  Untested, unproven, ripe for disaster in my opinion.  And don't get me started on the JFK comparison, because there is none.  He was a war hero and had served in Washington more than a decade when he was elected.

Back on the original post.  Why is this being spun to benefit Obama so much?  Money is only part of the story.  Haven't you learned any thing from Mitt momeybags?  Or John Connolly or the many others before?  No this post is nothing put grandstanding for Obama.  I got an idea: How about sticking to the issues, isn't that what PHB is supposed to be about?

---

by: xrk9854 @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 00:33:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More

And another thing: George Bush was also someone who ran as an outsider calling for "change".  Because he never served in Washington he could distort the Clinton/Gore and Kerry records all he wanted to because he didn't have a record to scrutinize.  He deftly portrayed Kerry's legislative record as flip-flopping when anyone who knows anything about how Washington works knows you often have to vote both ways because there are different version of bills and such.  Anywho, back to my original point: George Bush had little to no experience and look what it got us.  Do we really want to elect another person with little to no experience?  I think not.

---

by: xrk9854 @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 00:41:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

last summer

Lurleen, the story is from last summer (July 2006) and the figures were through March of 2006.  Barack was in the US Senate then.

---

by: June @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:23:38 AM CST

i looked it up

and you're right, he had been there since january, 2005.  enough time for big ticket lobbyists to dump money on him?  it would be interesting to know two things:  hoe much was offered to him, and how much of it did he refuse.  until he is in the position of having to refuse donations from 'big interests', he can't really pretend to be more ethical about the whole thing.  also, i understand that he has been in the pocket of the liquified coal industry for some time (read: major polluter).  well, he was until recently, when he saw what a political liability that was becoming.  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:33:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama & Lobbyists' Money

I find it interesting that there is still a perception out there that Senator Obama does not take, or has not taken, money from lobbyists.

Actually, as Public Citizen pointed out yesterday, Senator Obama has taken money - lots and lots of money - from registered lobbyists:

http://www.citizen.org/documen...

And, as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, Obama's so called "ban" on money from lobbyists "has its limits:"

http://www.caclean.org/problem...

And the Boston Globe reports that "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant."

http://www.boston.com/news/nat...

Senator Obama can (and does) take large amounts of money from lobbyists.

---

by: SteveR @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:30:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Big donors

Hillary relied on big donors. Once they hit the $2,300 limit, they could not donate again. Obama has donors like me contributing $20, $50, $100 who can continue to contribute over and over again. In late January, Hillary put $5 million of her own money into her campaign. In the 48 hours since polls closed February 5th, Obama supporters have contributed $5.2 million to his campaign.

For many years, politicians have used fear, hypocrisy and division to gain votes. Now we have Obama promoting unity and hope for our future. I support and voted for Obama because I want to be proud of our country again.

---

by: Bill Ware @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM CST

Chelsea could raise money -NOT

She isn't allowed to give an interview, afraid she will spill the beans about what really goes on in the family.

---

by: Dunkindonuts @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:02:36 AM CST

Romney

Romney poured 35 million into his campaign. He is suspending his campaign today.  I truly hope that will not happen to Hillary.  
I believe that a Hillary/Obama ticket would win in a landslide. She provides the experience, he the enthusiasm and continues to push for change.  We have the best candidates (sans Edwards) but we could lose it all in November if the sniping keeps up and statements from Michele Obama signaling their supporters to not support Hillary if she becomes the nominee.  Michele Obama's statement when asked if she would support Hillary if she became the nominee, "I'd have to think about it", was a stupid and potentially election changing remark....

There are many that will vote for McCain if Obama is not the nominee, but there will be many less jumping ship if Michele Obama would issue a statement saying that she would support Hillary as the nominee if chosen.  The circular firing squad is beginning to get into formation!

---

by: tsunamiblue @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:43:31 PM CST

Enough 'bout the money - let's talk issues

I know that discussing the money war and evaluating the latest daily tracking polls can make for interesting coffeetable chat. But, I prefer to compare these candidates on the issues and to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses on who is going to do the most to improve the quality of life for my family.

Whenever Democrats start elevating the role of money in our politics, I feel like we're acting like Republicans.

---

by: Clark414 @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 13:05:35 PM CST

Hear! Hear! And on the issue of health care...

 

Paul Krugman has an easy-reading comparison of how much better Senator Clinton's plan would be compared to that of Senator Obama (for those of us who are not going to be pouring over pages of reports on this issue). Check it out at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ex=1359867600&en=0a79062d32c378c9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 16:14:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry to screw up the page width with the nasty long link.

I can't figure out why the software does that sometimes, but other times, not.  And I don't trust the "tiny URL" sites particularly.  Any suggestion?  Other than, stop doing that, moron.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 16:19:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still Don't Trust Him

Obama may be the second coming of JFK and all that, but as a gay man I still don't trust him. Let's just say it's my gaydar in reverse. His official positions are okay, but whenever he has the chance to pander to the homophobes, he winks at us in the LGBT community, says "Trust me" under his breath, and jumps with both feet into bed with the bigots. Nothing wrong with a big tent, but if you let too many snakes in, somebody's going to get bit.
Hillary may be broke, she may not have the "charisma" of BO, and she may be the Dem that the Reps most like to hate, but at least I don't get the feeling she's toss us out with the bathwater.
AMERICAblog may have drunk the Obama-ade, but I hope Pam hasn't. Yet.

---

by: myroro @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 13:22:09 PM CST

Defensiveness

Pam makes a good point, and asks a valid question.

Comparing different candidates' long-term strategies with regards fundraising (donor mobilization/involvment) is a very interesting subject for discussion, which bears on their ability to hire and motivate top quality staff, to form strategy, on their judgement, and on their wits.

I work in IT and Fundraising.  Anyone who compares the blog/websites of Clinton and Obama who knows those fields, will see one as as an upgrade to facebook, and the other as little more than an old-skool BBS where you can post or reply.

Last night my husband and I flipped back and forth between the two sites/blogs (our big screen can do TV and PC).  

-  On one the blog participants were daring each other to either volunteer and use the "phonebank" applet to call 50 voters (always with link), or donate (always with link).  They knew what to do, and how to do it, it's freaking facebook!  They randomly pen-pal match donors from different parts of the country.  

Oh and this (Web 2.0) site is entirely unmoderated, any citizen can post, the blog/website owner is not legally liable for the content of posts.

-   On the other blog/site, (where half the posts are in ALL UPEPR CASE!!!!) while they were begging each other to donate, none of them really knew how, without an envelope and a stamp.  There was no option to volunteer online and do something to hellp right now at all.  

This site is fully moderated, the blog/site owner is legally liable for the content of posts.

As a fundraiser, I can say that the cost per dollar returned of direct postal fundraising/stewardship is a large multiple of the cost of internet fundraising. If that's not a blinding glimpse of the obvious.  Events are even more expensive, or poor return on investment.

Equally, any fundraiser will tell you that picking the right number to ask for is make or break.
-   On the "facebook" site the minimum ask was U$50.  
-   On the "old-skool" site the minimum ask was U$10.  

Guess which campaign made more money?  

Sure you can pay less than the ask number, and you can do so on both sites, but most committed donors answer with your asking number, or more if they can afford it.  If you ask for too much, they refuse, if you ask for too little, your cause suffers.  It's all about experience and judgement in non-profits.

Even more significant, on the unmoderated site there were a number of opposition fans posting hateful screeds and rants.  I was particularly struck that the participants' response was to reply to the nastygram that they were donating to their candidate in the name of the hater.  That struck me as a very positive way to rebut ugliness, as opposed to returning anger with anger.

We didn't see any posts calling the site-owner hateful names on the moderated site...  I assume any critical posts are censored.

For me, as a fundraiser, this is about one team showing good judgement, strategy and planning, looking at the big picture; while the other team didn't even bother thinking about it.

---

by: Canuk @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 15:15:01 PM CST

care to tell us which is which?

because i'm not going to go to either candidates site and donate, but your analysis is intersting.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 19:04:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]