Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

$77 Million spent in one year! $11 Million in one month!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:52 PM
Original message
$77 Million spent in one year! $11 Million in one month!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is Obama's $83M spent last year and $15M this month somehow better?
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 12:58 PM by rinsd
:shrug:

So Obama has outspent Hillary to so far achieve a tie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. At least the young man lived within his means
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. And hired staff that didn't bleed the campaign dry n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
43. in the fourth quarter Obama took in $23 million and spent $40 million
All candidates live on the edge and hope that future fundraising will keep them afloat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Did he have to 'loan' himself the money to do so?
Will Clinton 'self finance' the U.S. Government when she overspends as President?

An intelligent candidate spends what they have - not what they don't.

How'd the other self-funders of this race do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The candiate campaign spending = economic policy is a stupid argument.
Almost as dumb as the one that someone who made money in life will have a good handle on economic policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Got it - wouldn't want the person in charge to know what was going on
Either she knew she was over-spending her unlimited budget or she didn't. Is she not in control of her staff (and how they manage the campaign)? Or is she unaware of how her campaign is being run? She has made it clear time and time again that SHE is in charge. So she cannot manage money or control her spending or control those who are supposed to manage money. She just throws a few million at the problem and moves along (did she fire anybody for mismanaging funds? did she ask anyone to resign for spending her into the position she is in?).

Is this how she will manage as President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. So Obama spending more than her for less votes shows what?
It shows nothing.

If she had not spent that money and she had done worse on Super Tuesday would that somehow be better?

The candidates are going to spend obscene amounts of money and already have spent nearly $200M combined.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. delete - double post
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 01:09 PM by Debi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Thanks--nice to have some prespective on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yes, Obama spent money he had - Clinton spent money she didn't n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. a little cash flow problem, Obama has a bigger problem with the cult articles coming out
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 01:43 PM by rodeodance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. 'A little cash flow problem'
is called a recession here in America...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. ha ha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
64. Tom Harkin, Debi, interesting
"Well, I agree with our chairman Howard Dean. I sure hope this gets settled before we go to convention. That'd be very late. That'd be at the end of August. We've never had anything that late before we've had a candidate. So I don't know, I think, you know, looking at Super Tuesday, things came out pretty even. Now, again, I'm not a real expert in this but just listening to the pundits and sort of reading what I can on it it looks as though the calendar for this month favors Obama. The calendar next month may favor Clinton but I think the headline in the Washington Post this morning is very instructive. I thought I had it there. What did it say? It said, oh, 'Clinton lent her campaign $5 million' -- that's very interesting and that was before Super Tuesday. That was before Super Tuesday, so you wonder if their campaign is just running on fumes.


http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2008/02/harkin-suggests.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. we'll see when the January report comes out
but that certainly can't be said of the state of the campaigns through the end of 07.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Which won't be out until April - Clinton was pretty quiet on her $5 million loan
hoping that information wouldn't become public.

Yes, Clinton's $5 million in debt in 2007 should have alerted us to her campaign's financial mismanagement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. actually, we are now in monthly reporting mode and the Jan report is due Feb 20.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

And I'd be curious to see whether HRC's reporting of $5 million in debt and $38 million cash on hand compares to how she and other candidates stacked up in previous quarters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Thank you for correcting me -
reports due right after the Feb. 19th HI/WI contests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. (sigh) so what. It's politics, and until it's not financed by special interests, it doesn't matter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Anything hypocritical about a person who professes to be for campaign finance reform
dipping into their own pockets to fund their campaign (because they over-spent and mismanaged their funds)?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Obama takes no money from lobbyists.
Clinton has taken more money from lobbyists than both McCain and Romney put together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. (sigh) lobbyists and special interests, two distincty different categories of scum
We'll see. In the end, everyone is swayed by the green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Actually Obama does take money from lobbyists.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/11/203254/369

"While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital," Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.

Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama "gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different ... But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists," Morain wrote.

Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama's fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign--in addition to their own personal contributions.

Also of relevance

Obama’s K Street project
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 03/28/07 07:42 PM
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. STOP SAYING THAT
you know full well that St. Barack would never do such a thing. Just because he raised $20+ million from the business partners and law partners of lobbyists, doesn't mean it came from people interested in the lobbyists. The guys just really like Barack, ok? sheesh. Just like Rezko, he (well, technically his wife) just really liked Michelle, that's why she sold him that mansion for $400k under market value. people just LIKE him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. Donation Bundlers for Obama Registered as Federal Lobbyists:



Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Donation Bundlers for Obama Registered as Federal Lobbyists:
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4455957#4455957
4455957, Donation Bundlers for Obama Registered as Federal Lobbyists:
Posted by Tellurian on Thu Feb-07-08 08:57 AM

...so you think it's small donations raised at consistently staggering amounts in Obama's campaign....John Edwards must have found out about Obama's "dirty little secret"...I have to commend Edwards for his honesty!

Bundlers for Barack Obama Who Have Registered as Federal Lobbyists

Lobbyist: Frank Clark

State: IL

Employer: Commonwealth Edison

www.exeloncorp.com/ExelonInternet/Templates/StandardPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2faboutus%2fmanagement%2f&NRNODEGUID=%7b32364CEC-B05E-440D-B090-6F88AD6DC26B%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#clark

Commonwealth Edison is a subsidiary of Exelon, the nuclear energy company to whom Barack Obama is beholden. Clark is Commonwealth Edison’s chief legislative strategist. Clark is also a Board member of Aetna, a health insurance company.

Scott Harris
DC
Harris Wiltshire and Grannis

www.harriswiltshire.com/whoweare.aspx?menu=1&seccionIzq=64&seccionIzqImage=67&seccionCen=65&seccionDer=66

Lobbies the FCC on behalf of international foreign governments and foreign telecommunications providers.

Allan J. Katz
FL
Akerman Senterfitt

akerman.com/public/attorneys/aBiography.asp?id=716

Katz is a member of the Florida Democratic Committee and the Democratic National Committee. Perhaps he will convince Obama to seat the Florida delegates at the convention. He sits on the Board of Citizens Property Insurance, and he lobbies legislators on behalf of insurance companies. Is Katz a superdelegate?

Robert S. Litt
MD
Arnold & Porter

www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?u=LittRobertS&action=view&id=286

Litt is a white collar criminal defense attorney who previously worked at the Department of Justice. He has represented a range of clients, including pharmaceutical companies, who were the subjects of Congressional investigations. He also has extensive experience in national security matters.

Thomas J. Perrelli
VA
Jenner and Block

www.jenner.com/people/bio.asp?id=306

Perrelli is a lobbyist who represents the recording industry who served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. He was also highly engaged in litigation surrounding reapportionment of Congressional districts in 2000.

Thomas A. Reed
VA
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP

www.klgates.com/professionals/detail.aspx?professional=3176

Reed, an attorney who hails from Chicago, specializes in product liability, business litigation and antitrust defense. He also served in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

Paul N. Roth
NY
Schulte Roth & Zabel

www.srz.com/attorneys/attorneyDetail.aspx?attorneyId=61

Roth is a finance attorney who specializes in mergers, investment management and business transactions.

Miriam Sapiro
DC
Summit Strategies

www.summitstrategies.com/aboutsummit/org_overview.htm

Summit Strategies is an institutional investment consulting firm.

Alan Solomont*
MA
Solomont Bailis Ventures

www.tbf.org/tbfgen1.asp?id=1713

Solomont is a former Finance Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He served as a delegate of Massachusetts to the national convention during the 1990s, and he was appointed by former President Bill Clinton to serve on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service. He is also heavily engaged in various health care ventures.

Tom E. Wheeler*
DC
Core Capital Partners

www.core-capital.com/tom_wheeler.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. “Nobody’s Hands Are Perfectly Clean in Politics”

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics /


“Nobody’s Hands Are Perfectly Clean in Politics”
By: looseheadprop Wednesday February 6, 2008 4:30 pm

pokerdempseys.thumbnail.jpg

In her NyTimes OpEd endorsing the candidacy of Barack Obama, Caroline Kennedy tells us that rather than basing our decision on a candidates' stated positions on the issues or on their experience we should focus instead on his character.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

I have long been an admirer of Ms. Kennedy's and I think she has point. Problem is, Obama has a Tony Rezko problem. Actually a whole bunch of Tony Rezko problems. And a few other problems here and there which do not say very good things about his character or his sense of ethics or his ability to spot the appearance of impropriety. I include on that list the recent revelations about the legislation which he claims to have "passed" relating to leakage of nuclear material into drinking water.

REZKO

When Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko interviewed him for a job working for one of Rezko's companies. Obama turned down the job, but instead accepted more indirect employment at the law firm representing a series of Rezko's not-for-profit partners in the series of transactions to build and rehab low income housing that are now the subject of federal indictment in Chicago which US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described as "pay to play on steroids."

Obama was an attorney with a small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor.

Resko got millions of dollars to build and rehab low income housing and according to the government, embezzled the money. The people in those houses had no heat, no water. They lived in squalor--many in Obama's State senate district. You could assume constituent complaints would have come in and Obama's law firm did the legal work for those government contracts and grants. Yet he denies knowing about it.

During this period, Rezko was mentoring him and raising money for him and hosting parties to introduce Obama to influential people.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a June 27, 2003, cocktail party in Rezko’s Wilmette mansion, picking up the tab for the lavish event. Obama’s campaign staff has said it has no records to show who attended that party, or how much it cost.

As an aside, Obama told the press that the total amount raised by Rezko for him over his career was only about $60,000, when the amount given by Rezko has been reported at $162,000 and change, and if you count the money Rezko bundled for him it goes even higher.

After he was elected to the Senate and while he was anticipating a large sum of money from his soon to be best selling book, Obama found his dream home. There is an extensively detailed post over at MyDD explaining the timeline of this purchase and just how "insider" it was. It's a real eye opener. Read to the end past all the maps and statistics.

There was a slight hitch in that Obama could not quite afford the asking price for the house which was situated on a large lot. According to MyDD, Michelle Obama used her position on the Chicago Landmarks Commission to facilitate the subdivision of the lot.

Barack Obama, for his part, went to Rezko for "advice" about how to buy a house he cannot afford and "poof" Rezko's wife pays full price for a portion of the property and Obama gets a discount on the house. A while later, he bought back 1/6 of the lot from her for 1/6 of the price she paid for it. How is that different from an interest free loan equal to the amount paid for that 1/6 of the lot? According to MyDD, Obama pays for the landscaping of the Rezko lot and may have been using it to park his cars because his neighborhood does not allow on street parking, in which case how is this different from rent free occupancy of the land?

Now comes the revelation: the Chicago Sun Times reported that Obama is mentioned in the federal criminal case against Rezko.

Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.

The COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Add to that this golden oldie from the Chicago Tribune.

Nowhere was Obama's ability to navigate Springfield's subcultures on better display than at The Committee Meeting. That was the code name for Wednesday night poker games attended by about a dozen lawmakers and lobbyists. Obama was a regular, and his stingy betting became a running joke with those at the table.

--snip--

An exception to his disciplined routine was the poker game held inside the headquarters of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, the big business lobby whose legislative goals often were at odds with those of liberals like Obama.

Handed a cigar and cocktail on the way in, players left a few hundred dollars richer or poorer. Obama played liked he legislated, "slowly, deliberately, cautiously," recalled Jacobs.

The ChiTrib doesn't explicitly say whether he won or lost. And I am certainly not suggesting he lost. To the contrary, the segment highlighted, suggests he DIDN'T lose.

One of the things that came out about Abramoff et al. was that they would invite Congress critters to play poker and wine and dine in a hotel suite that the lobbyist paid for, and then let them win. It was a way of passing money to them without leaving a paper trail. The Chicago events were hosted at the HQ of a lobbying organization, I think it's fair to assume that the cocktails and Cohibas were provided by the hosts and the article makes a point of saying that he was a stingy better and a cautious player--directly suggesting that he seldom lost. And what kind of message are you sending joking about the game being a "Committee Meeting"?

One of the reasons public corruption cases, at least the bribery part, are often so hard to prove is that the participants go to great lengths to have a "beard" for the transactions. Paying for vacations, losing at poker, doing repairs on the elected's house without any invoices, throwing business to the elected's (or their relative's) law firms or companies, regularly taking the elected out for very expensive meals is known as soft bribery. In the Bess Meyerson case, which the government lost, the bribe was a job for the judge's otherwise unemployable daughter.

Unless someone flips and gives you testimony, or unless, as in Operation Greylord, you have audio or video tapes, it's really really hard to get a conviction because there usually is not much of a paper trail. Since there wouldn't even be hotel records for the Chicago games, they are particulary fuzzy.

Back to REZKO

Unless there is testimony out there. Long ago when I was doing criminal cases, an unnamed source from the prosecution was called "a source close to the investigation" and a leak from the defense was called "a source familiar with the case." I don't know if the ChiSun uses those naming conventions, but it occurs to me that someone may have been trying to scare the pants off Obama. Interestingly, Obama suddenly left Nevada and flew back to Chicago on Sunday right after the caucuses.

If I'm the AUSA handling the case, I would assume (if I didn't know already) from that leak from the source "familiar with the case" that there is definitely somebody out there with testimony and I might even know who that person is and that this is the time to squeeze him. It's a sign that the defendants and suspects are considering turning on each other. Always a happy thing for the prosecution.

I don't know what Obama did to merit so much help from Rezko. The Chicago Sun Times reported that

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

In that deal Rezko paid only $1 for the land. The rest of the deal, which included an $800,000 development fee paid to Rezko's company, was entirely financed by public money. There is also a much more minor incident involving giving an internship:

John Aramanda served as an intern for Obama for about a month in 2005, said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. His father is Joseph Aramanda, a Rezko business associate who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal corruption case against Rezko. Aramanda has contributed $11,500 to Obama since 2000, Gibbs said. “Mr. Rezko did provide a recommendation for John Aramanda..."

Was it simply enough that Obama didn't make waves about the lack of heat and deplorable conditions in the Rezko buildings situated within Obama's state senate district? I don't know. But I was struck by a comment Obama made in the debate on of the debates to the effect of "you know how Illinois politics are" or some such. Followed later on by

Nobody's hands are perfectly clean in politics. That is true. I mean, there a distinction, though, between not taking PAC and federal lobbyist money and having that as a major way of driving your campaign and having some ancillary involvement.

At the time, I wondered to myself, "where did that come from?"

photo by ldandersen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. wait, I don't get it
Obama spent $52.4 million on things besides advertising, Hillary spent $52.3m. and she's the one with a problem?

first off, we don't know how much she had in the bank in January. We don't know how low Obama got before his post SC surge, either. this is all ridiculous until we know the actual numbers at stake. and, of course, financial management of a campaign is completely different from anything else. You know what you get if you have money left over and lose a race? not a goddamn thing. both campaigns should have been basically broke on Super Tuesday, you get no extra credit for not spending your money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Obama spent money he had AND was prepared to spend AFTER super Tuesday
Clinton spent money she DIDN'T have and was NOT prpared to move on after Super Tuesday.

His campaign spent within their means (and didn't spend it all) whereas Clinton's campaign went for broke - and got there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. obviously she did have it
TV stations don't run ads on credit.

and I repeat. you have no idea what the numbers looked like at certain points in the month of January. have you seen an FEC report? I haven't. I have no doubt Obama raised a lot of money, I am intrigued that Clinton didn't, but then, she never asked for money until now, and has managed to pull in $5m in the past two days. so I think she'll be fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. her donors maxed out and she didn't have new ones - she's getting some new one's now
but only about 1/3 of Obama's and he still has his original donors to rely on as well.


And yes she did ask for money - I received email after email after email asking for money. I'm glad she's raised $5 million to date (and we don't know how much more she'll kick in herself) Of course that's $4 million less than Obama raised and he managed his money correctly so still has more that Clinton does.

As for the FEC report - none of us will see it until April 15th which is what Clinton was hoping for - that none of us would know about her self-funding until then. But somebody either spilled the beans or figured it out. (why wouldn't I believe the campaigns about how much they have and how much they've spent? Would they lie or cover it up?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. makes you wonder why it was leaked, don't it?
and two days later there is 5 million more in the bank. coincidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You go with that!
:thumbsup:

Hopes it works out well - of course a cynic would think that Hillary just got her $5 million back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. perhaps
who knows what the repayment terms were?

and it also dulled the impact of the huge cash week for Obama. more 'comeback' stuff. Think about it, a month ago, she had to loan her campaign money, and now she is pulling in 5 million in 48 hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Or -
She had to loan her campaign $5 million - raised the $5 million to repay that loan all while Obama is on track to raise an additional $30 million in February to go along with the $32 million he raised in January (oh, and he hasn't needed to write any personal checks...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. who knows?
maybe Obama will manage to buy his way through the next two months. I hope he continues to raise this money, he's going to need about another $100 million minimum to take on McCain. probably $120-150 at this rate.

what is his monthly burn rate, do you know? they bother to tell you how much of that reported $32million is left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Why would I question Obama's expenditures? He hasn't had to lend his campaign money.
As for the General Election - since only 3% of Obama's donors have maxed out I'm sure he'll have plenty of $$ for the race (and would hope in the name of unity that Clinton and her donors would contribute as well).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Obama seems to have concentrated on his ground game.
Pulled all those states up while the Clinton campaign wasn't watching or couldn't be bothered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. His campaign is just managed better than Clinton's
I noticed she hasn't fired anyone who got her into the trouble she's in - nor has anyone who misspent the $77 million resigned.

Obviously this is just a big money-making extravaganza for some of these folks (Mark Penn $4 million dollars) and they don't care about the outcome (and Clinton will just keep throwing money at the problem rather than trying to fix it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
23. Travel expenses are a big portion. All the travel consumes a great deal of cash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. And yet Obama was able to travel w/out writing his campaign a $5 million check n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. yes, you have made this point
we have all figured out that Barack Obama has more money than Hillary Clinton. And since this is America, the person with the most money is the better person. we get it, ok?

wait, no, that's what Republicans think. still, the echoes are eerie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I never said that the person with the most money is the better person
but I will say that Barack Obama has managed his finances and his campaign (or hired better peope to do so) than Hillary Clinton.

If you don't like my responses you don't need to read em *points to ignore button* go ahead, be my guest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. really? go read your posts on this thread
it is total worshipping of Obama's better finances. you are almost drooling. seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. And yet I didn't caucus for the man or donate a dime to his campaign
but I believe he has run a superior campaign and is a better manager.

What is wrong with thinking that? Just because it doesn't fit into your mindset it's wrong?

I've told you once before if you don't like it - click ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyskank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. Meh, I've had worse months.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Times when there was no bread in the house? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyskank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. What use is 11m bucks when you're out of bread and the store is closed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Exactly!
Or when your locked out :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. Bad management
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. And NOBODY got fired for it!
The very people who bled her campaign dry and forced her to self fund all still have jobs!

Where do I sign up (to get money from Hillary....not to give any)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
38. really, I can' think of a better way to put money to use in this country
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formernaderite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
49. this is why we need publicly financed campaigns
the amount of money WASTED on further propping up the media, is sickening. On every side...gosh, a cease fire might be in order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
62. And the media fuels it, too.
All those millions go straight to the MSM. Meanwhile they try to make the race as close as possible to keep the ad buys coming. Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
51. She's running a rather Romney-esque campaign
i.e., lots of $$$ per vote-- poor bang for the buck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. But she said it was a wise investment
x(

You don't agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Well, if I could turn $1000 into $100,000 on cattle futures
I'd probably be running for president, too :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. *snark*
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Aisle seat, please. Lactose-free meal, if possible.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. as of the end of 2007 she had spent less than Obama and had more delegates
How is that poor bang for the buck?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. At the end of 2007, NOBODY had any delegates
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Well - technically there were some supedelegates floating around
but no pledged delegates :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Yeah, but superdelegates suck
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
61. It's sort of obscene, isn't it?
For all of them. Obama bragging about raising $6 million in a day, Clinton bragging about raising $4 million since Tuesday; and "only" raising $8 million in Jan. means that the Clinton campaign is in trouble. No wonder they all have to rely on these shady fund-raisers. We need mandatory public financing of campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC