You know I stay out of this forum, but I am curious...

[arendt]

I never understood what the power base was behind Obama. (And, you have to have a power base to raise the kind of money he is raising.)

I don't want to start a flame war. I just want some information:

Was this mass Kennedy endorsement:

a) something that was always in the works? (i.e., Barack shares the Kennedy power base?)
b) something he had to work hard to get? (i.e., the Kennedys really would have been OK with HRC?)
c) a foregone conclusion ever since Kennedy surrogate Kerry went for BO?

Any information you provide me will help me to decode exactly WTF is going on in this bought and paid for election.

Thank you,

arendt

[polichick]

1. Something I heard on msnbc today...

Kennedy hadn't planned to endorse at all, even though all the candidates were trying to get his endorsement. He called Bill Clinton last week about the tone of things, and was angrier when he got off the phone than when he called.

[cruadin]

9. I heard also that Kennedy only made up his mind after...

speaking to Bill Clinton, but another source claimed that Bill had called Ted only after learning that the whole Kennedy clan was going for Obama. Hard to know which version/chronology is correct.

[polichick]

11. Hmm...interesting. nt

[LittleClarkie]

12. Either way it's interesting. I hope there's a write up on it in one of the news magazines

or somewhere.

[question everything]

106. Either way, it puts Kennedy in a cowardly, vindictive light

If, as some say, he has always liked Obama, why not go out in public and say so? Why "admonish" Clinton, creating the impression that he would remain neutral?

If he deiced to go out in public after Bill's campaign, then this, really, is a very shallow and vindictive way to endorse a candidate and one has to wonder about the depth of his other opinions.

You do not endorse someone because you dislike someone else. Unless, of course, besides charisma and skin color and eloquence Obama has nothing to offer.

[chieftain]

60. I think there were 2 calls.

The first was prior to the SC Primary from Ted asking Clinton to tone down his remarks. The second was from Clinton to Ted as rumors started to surface the Ted was going to endorse Barack. The reports are that Clinton asked Ted to remain neutral.

[jillan]

13. So this endorsement was a payback?

oh that's good!

[polichick]

15. No - what the pundits are saying is that Ted was worried...

...about what Clinton's behavior was doing to the party, and especially concerned about the African American base.

[OzarkDem]

21. Sounds a little like clashing egos

[tishaLA]

25. I'm sure that's part of it

But I think en Kennedy is also someone who puts party first and, I believe, the reports indicate that he didn't see the former president doing the same thing.

[polichick]

29. I don't know, because it was the same reaction I had...

After watching Bill on the trail, I changed my mind from thinking it would be fine to have Hillary in the WH to not wanting the Clintons back. The SC race changed the picture for me, and I too worried about the party and our chances to win in November. When I saw that Edwards couldn't do well in his home territory, I decided to support Obama. I think we need a big, strong, energetic movement to win with the margin we need ~ and Obama is our best bet. imo that's what Ted decided too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Good questions. This following is uhhhhh.....interesting since the man is no Progressive.

I can't wait to read the answers.:) He had to make a deal somewhere along the line. We just won't know what the deal was until after he's elected....if he's elected.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Hmm, now who do I trust on a politician's progressive cred:

1. John Kerry, Ned Lamont, Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Deval Patrick, Pat Leahy, Bill Bradley?

2. in_cog_ni_to?

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. Hmmmmm....I really don't care if you trust my cred. I've probably been voting longer than you've

alive. Just judging by how immature you are.

The man is no Progressive and that is a fact. Anyone wishing to play nice with the thugs who have destroyed this country isn't getting my primary vote and by the time the GE rolls around, Barack will be old news, so I won't have to vote for him in the GE either.

[Occam Bandage]

59. There's a sterling comeback. "I'm probably much older than you."

I suppose next you'll inform me how much stronger your father is than my own; it may well be true. It still doesn't change the fact that you're offering a self-referential appeal to authority as your primary argument on Obama's character, and there exist many out there who are far more trustworthy than anonymous voice on the Internet.

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. Of course. Let Congress and ex members of Congress choose our candidate.

Now that's smart.

[NMMNG]

74. Don't forget, Oprah and Stephen King endorsed him too

:shrug:

[Cleita]

121. That pretty much covers the business as usual establishment

Washington. That's why I voted for Edwards.

[Whisp]

3. curious as well.

we are only being served two entrées.
I think there is botulism in both - one is fast acting, one may be a bit slower but just as dangerous.

[sandnsea]

4. A rebuke of Clinton divisiveness and destruction

Probably. Support of Caroline who wanted to do this for her children. Probably that as well.

Nobody has bought Barack Obama. It's a stupid premise from the gate.

[arendt]

6. This is America, 2008. Everyone is assumed to be bought until proven otherwise. n/t

[sandnsea]

20. Not In My America n/t

[arendt]

28. No offense, but its way past time to face facts. This country is corrupt to the core. n/t

[sandnsea]

33. No, it really isn't

Begone cynicism!!!

Most people are honest, even politicians.

[ellisonz]

58. ...

"Man cannot be free if he does not know that he is subject to necessity, because his freedom is always won in his never wholly successful attempts to liberate himself from necessity."

The Human Condition (1958), part 3, chapter 16

[monmouth]

5. None of us were in any smoky backrooms but I can hazard a guess....

Caroline mentioned more than once or twice how much she liked Obama and wanted to help him. All of those kids defer to Uncle Ted. Uncle Ted, let's wait and see how this shakes out, talks to son Patrick and others in the family. A couple of the females said they would support HRC. Okay, Ted listens and watches Barack and agrees with Caroline, he does have a real JFK feel to him. The party needs to be unified and Barack is just the guy to do it. Bill Clinton calls Ted and asks him not to get involved. Ted tells Bill he should back off with the racial rhetoric and other stuff. I hear it was a very heated conversation. After that conversation, as all good Irish men would be inclined to do, he said to himself.."FU Bill, you don't tell me when or who to endorse." I'm just guessing here but I don't think I'm far off. The Clintons were put in their place and they lost...BIG time...

[Apollo11]

7. Obama's power base is millions of Americans who are hungry for change.

Plus he has Oprah on his team, which can't hurt I guess.

[arendt]

8. He had the money long before he had the millions. I'm asking who put it up. n/t

[NoBorders]

34. Had what money?

Money from his IL campaign or something? I don't know. He has the largest number of small donors. I donated to his campaing, a first for me.

He made a big splash with is 2004 convention speech, and that brought him some notoriety.

I guess I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. Is that to run for president and get a lot of attention you need some special 'power base' first? I suppose you could be right.

Let us know what you find out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Change to what? More of the same? How is that change? Barack is no Progressive.

I don't consider him A Liberal at all because he's not, so how exactly is he going to change things playing nice with repukes?

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. Don't expect an answer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. I don't. I've asked the same question many times and no one ever has an answer.

:(

[juajen]

99. Same answer I get when I ask "What's he gonna change?"

Never had an answer.

[arendt]

52. So far, this thread is proving you correct. Do you have an opinion...

as to what interest group / monied interest backed him and gave him prominence a year ago, when no one outside of rabid politico-holics had ever heard of him?

arendt

[ellisonz]

62. That information is public.

First Quarter 2007 Fundraising

Obama received donations from more than 100,000 donors, far surpassing any other candidate, including Clinton (50,000), McCain (45,000), Edwards (40,000) or Romney (32,000)

$6.9 million of Obama's donations came from more than 50,000 donors via the Internet, far surpassing any of his rivals

90 percent of Obama's donations were small donations of $100 or less

The fundraising, Plouffe said, would help the Obama campaign compete in the early primary and caucus states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as in the mass of large states holding primaries on Feb. 5 -- such as Florida, New Jersey and California -- in what has come to be called "Super Duper Tuesday."

"There's a good chance we'll have financial parity in these Feb. 5 states," Plouffe said. "We have to capitalize on ."

Noting that Obama had attracted twice as many donors as Clinton, Plouffe called today's announcement an "explosive kindling we need to ignite."

The accomplishment is all the more impressive considering Obama's refusal to take donations from political action committees or people registered as lobbyists.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3007098&page=1

[arendt]

72. You distorted it. He raised $26M, of which $7M was from small donors. That is only ~28% from small.

Did you think I would not read what you posted? Or did you think I was stupid enough not to connect the number at the top of the story with the number you quoted?

By JAKE TAPPER
April 4, 2007

In a conference call with financial supporters this morning, the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., announced that it had raised an eye-popping $25 million, with almost all of it -- $23.5 million -- raised for use during the Democratic primaries and caucuses...

$6.9 million of Obama's donations came from more than 50,000 donors via the Internet, far surpassing any of his rivals.

So, I repeat.

Who are the BIG donors.

arendt

[ellisonz]

85. That's only internet fundraising.

I assume they used mailings too.

[arendt]

89. The article you cited gave a total of $26M in 1Q07. You're saying they got even more...

from mailings?

Or, do I misunderstand?

arendt

[ellisonz]

118. I'm saying that a significant portion of his fund-raising is grassroots.

And that you are very presumptuous...

[arendt]

119. Presumptuous? About what? I'm just confused. Saying"grassroots" doesn't answer my question...

Is it your claim that this "grassroots" money come in by mail, and therefore is in excess of the $26 M you already stated?

arendt

[ellisonz]

125. I'm saying the way you think about campaign fundraising is not very perceptive.

Obama also held dozens of fundraisers around the country, but I don't think that means he's bought and paid for. I think you also have to realize that many of these events were $50 dinner/concert deals and that is hardly big money buying candidates. Obama has very diverse fundraising, just like Howard Dean. And so what if Hollywood and Wall Street give to Democrats? Taking the money doesn't mean you're corrupt.

Honestly, I think you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. If you don't realize that money has a big place in politics then you might as well remove your Howard Dean avatar because you don't realize why you have it. I'm not going to play gotcha at this point of the election cycle if you just haven't been paying attention then well too bad because Kucinich just dropped out.

[Apollo11]

22. Obama, Edwards, Hillary --- none of them has a track record of leaning to the left.

But Obama does have a track record of speaking out against the idea of invading Iraq - going back at least as far as October 2nd, 2002. Which gives him more points that either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

I actually believe that Obama is a progressive at heart. But he is trying to talk in a way that will connect with as many people as possible. Including people who never thought of themselves as "liberal" or "progressive".

[sandnsea]

23. You haven't looked at his record

His record is ten times that of Edwards. He gets things done the same way he's winning this election, by standing where he is and drawing people to his point of view.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sponsor/OBAMA.html

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. Yes I have looked at his record. I live in Illinois. The man is no Progressive.

Unless the thugs in power pay for their crimes, NOTHING will ever change. Barack TOLD ME HIMSELF that he wants to "bring the country together and move forward and would NOT investigate" these thugs. How will he change anything? His rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. Same old shit a different day a different candidate.

I'm shocked by the DUers who are falling for all this HOPE and CHANGE crap. That's exactly what is is too...crap. Play nice with repukes and they'll play nice with him? HOW FREAKIN' NAIVE.

[sandnsea]

56. No, he said Justice would continue investigating

That HE wouldn't push for specific invesitgations the way the Bushies have abused their influence over various agencies.

And if you don't know his progressive record in Illinois, I would guess it's because you aren't one of the poor people he helped.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. Oh, I see...you have to be poor and had to receive his help to know whether he's a Progressive or

not. Geezus. What a pathetic argument.

NO. I emailed the man. He told me he wanted to bring the country together and stop all the bickering and fighting and we needed to move the country forward. He will NOT call for an investigation. If he has said otherwise then post it here with a link, please. His email to me said the complete opposite.

[incapsulated]

93. He says "Change" a lot. And he has big banners that say "Change"

Jebus, what more do you need?

:P

[krabigirl]

116. He won't. It sounds good, though. Seriously though, he's quite moderate.

[Whisp]

36. i am almost beginning to like Obama

some things stick in my craw tho, his corporate backing (but then again, how can a runner BE without that, ask Dennis who has the heartbeat of america on his side?) and that dismissiveness he had toward the gay community re: McClurklin (sp?)

I just don't know, all I know is to mistrust. I've been trained well.

[sandnsea]

57. There was no dismissiveness

The only thing dismissed was Obama's goals for us all to get on the bus together. I bet you've never seen these remarks by Obama. I was told he had only released a couple paragraphs before the event. Not true at all. He released this statement and also spoke at an MTV event. He is as good on gay rights as anybody.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/C5zH

The corporate nonsense is the same kind of trumped up nonsense. The one who has spearheaded ethics reform in Illinois and DC, who has the actual record, is the one called the corporate candidate. It's crazy. Completely concocted by Joe Trippi.

[Adelante]

10. Decided after Iowa, informed Obama before South Carolina

There were some suggestions that Teddy Kennedy chose to endorse Obama because of Bill Clinton's Saturday night comparison of Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's.

Not so, say people on both sides of the endorsement: Kennedy called Obama Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Not_about_the_Jackson_line.html

Also please note:

After Mr. Obama won the Iowa caucuses, associates to both men said, Mr. Kennedy concluded that Mr. Obama had transcended racial lines and the historical divisions the Kennedy family had worked to tear down. Mr. Kennedy was also impressed at how Mr. Obama was not defined as a black candidate, but seen as a transformational figure.

It was then, associates said, that Mr. Kennedy began talking with family members, including Caroline Kennedy, who had reached her own judgment some time ago independently of her uncle. They then agreed last week to move ahead with their endorsement, coordinating their decision before the Feb. 5 contests.

-snip

Conversations about the White House began more than a year ago, with Mr. Obama paying Mr. Kennedy a visit to seek his thoughts about whether he should run for president. Mr. Kennedy told him that he should because such opportunities rarely come along.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28kennedy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Lucinda]

16. Obama came up through Chicago politics and is a seated senator.

He has lots of connections. He runs as the new guy, but he really isn't.

[sandnsea]

24. Ooohh, so now he IS experienced, is that it? n/t

[Lucinda]

27. I've never said he hadn't been around the block.

I HAVE said he's not ready for POTUS.

[Tulkas]

17. The American People... heard of it?

Tons of his money comes in 50 and 100 bucks at a time.

Not like Hillary's Lobbyist money.


Power To The People.... err

Power Base To The People

[arendt]

26. See #8. Plus, he is the only Dem to have had early positive media. Now, who put that fix in? n/t

[Tulkas]

38. Please document your claim on #8

It is possible that he had money left over from his run for the senate. The repug had some scandal pop up and Alan Keys stepped in to oppose Ohama. That means Obama ran almost unopposed, he may have saved some money from that.


The "FIX" as you call it may have been put in when Sen. Obama spoke at the '04 convention. He gave a great speech and the media ate it up.


I honestly have not looked into your questions. You sound as if you are grasping at straws

[arendt]

42. I'm not grasping at anything. I just asked who is the interest group behind Obama...

EVERY important politician has an interest group. That's why they are important.

Anyone who tells me a politician represents "the best hopes of the American people" just makes me suspicious.

-----

Yeah, Obama gave a good speech. What is curious is that the media amplified it, instead of squelching it - like they always do to Dems. Look at your words: "the media ate it up". Tell me the last time our corporate media did a Dem that favor.

I will get back to you about the early money. That will take some Googling, because I never paid any attention to the one-year-premature beginnings of Obama's and Hillary's campaigns. I early on said "The Permanent Campaign" was a corporate-sponsored Denial of Service attack on the normal political process, which is supposed to happen BETWEEN elections. You can check my journal for my comments about TPC.

arendt

[MH1]

65. I know several people who have been on the Obama train since VERY early

They have been very active and very vocal around here for a long time, if I recall correctly, even before Obama announced.

I know some of these people personally, and I can guarantee you they weren't bought, they were inspired.

Those are the kind of people those 100,000 contributions came from early on.

[jasmine621]

31. The American people elected George W Bush...twice!! nt

[Tulkas]

35. But most of the money came from Halliburton and friends

[kimmerspixelated]

40. Do people still believe that?

There is overwhleming evidence of theft TWICE- especially the last one!

[road2000]

45. Sorry, they did not. n/t

[Kokonoe]

30. I can try

I never understood what the power base was behind Obama. (And, you have to have a power base to raise the kind of money he is raising.)

Answer; Republicans trying to screw the election

Was this mass Kennedy endorsement:

a) something that was always in the works? (i.e., Barack shares the Kennedy power base?}

No

b) something he had to work hard to get? (i.e., the Kennedys really would have been OK with HRC?)
he
Obama is a shortcut to the true futrue that may have been, The Kennedys would have been OK with HRC


c) a foregone conclusion ever since Kennedy surrogate Kerry went for BO?

Whos kerry

this election is bought and paid for.






Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend (0 votes)

[arendt]

32. What is "the true future that may have been"?

> Obama is a shortcut to the true futrue that may have been, The Kennedys would have been OK with HRC

I get the end of this sentence, but not the beginning.

arendt

[Kokonoe]

41. Had JFK had not been shot

There would have never been a bush or reagan guiding us to the present. Is it possible that history is giving us a lesson.

[arendt]

43. I understand. So, you are saying that Obama is closer to the Kennedy positon than HRC? n/t

[Kokonoe]

44. kennedy's want restore America of failure

[arendt]

47. Sorry, your English is breaking up..."America of failure"??

Do you mean:

Restore America from failure?

Restore the failed America from 40 years ago?

----

No criticism intended. Its just that what you said is not decipherable.

arendt

[Kokonoe]

48. Restore the failed America from 40 years ago

and leap to the future

[ecstatic]

37. You fit in quite well nt

[arendt]

39. I don't come here like a reformed alcoholic doesn't drink. Can already see this was "a slip". n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. His campaign on the ground is the most impressive thing I've ever seen

And I'm no newbie to campaigns. I don't know if it's his background as an organizer, the advisors he chose, or a combination of both.

As for people like Kerry, Kennedy, McClaskill, etc endorsing him, something I heard from a woman who was well connected in Washington may provide the key. I met her when I was volunteering in NV. She said that she asked Kerry personally why he picked Obama over Clinton or Edwards. According to her, it had nothing to do with personal issues. He said he was simply tired of the past 15 years of gridlock and he saw Obama as the only hope of that changing. Of course this is hearsay so take it with a grain of salt but it does seem consistent with the type of person Kerry is. I can't see him endorsing for political reasons and he certainly isn't angling for a position in anyone's administration. Neither is Ted Kennedy. I probably can't say that about the others who endorsed Obama but definitely about those two.

[arendt]

49. Oy, ve! Round in circles we go (no offense to you)...

he's good because his campaign is good? But, then why is his campaign good? His staff? If so, then where did he get the staff? Did it cost him any money or favors to other politicos? Or are these guys personally loyal to him?

I'm just trying to understand who was backing this guy a year ago, before The Permanent Campaign erased everyone's memory that all politicians are representing some vested interest.

arendt

[Jane Austin]

54. I've made six or seven small donations since last summer,

and the people who's donations mine matched write me to say thanks, and they're just people, too.

[arendt]

55. That's still six months AFTER he had plenty of money and exposure...

I just want to know who was backing him in January, 2007 in order to give him such a big start.

Is that such an impossible question?

arendt

[kevsand]

61. The money has almost all come from small individual donors.

Even from the beginning. There's no chicken and egg scenario here. His financial base has always been based on quantity of donors rather than size of donation.

First it was people in Illinois. Then it was people he courted on the coasts. All throughout the process there has been a massive internet effort, fueled by word of mouth and viral email and video. MySpace was a big boost for him.

Along the way he had some high profile fundraisers from celebrities to help supplement, but every single quarter since he started his average donation has been much smaller than any of the other candidates, because his total number of donors has been much greater.

If you don't want to believe this, then just look up his FEC reports for yourself. They're freely available online.

[KoKo]

70. From Open Secrets ...Obama Money vs. John Edwards:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
OBAMA
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

Percent of Contributions Coded:


JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Top Contributors
ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Whitten, Nelson et al $66,250
Girardi & Keese $64,400
Beasley, Allen et al $61,850
Watts Law Firm $61,000
Morgan & Morgan $60,050
Skadden, Arps et al $54,950
Deutsche Bank AG $54,750
Citigroup Inc $49,200
Sidley Austin LLP $43,950
Brent Coon & Assoc $42,700
Kramer, Dillof et al $36,400
Motley Rice LLC $36,200
Baron & Budd $35,590
Brayton Purcell $35,100
Weitz & Luxenberg $34,600

[kevsand]

75. You do realize nearly all of that is from employees, right?

And several of those employers show up on both Obama's and Edwards' lists. So for several of those employers, more of their employees gave to Obama than Edwards.

[arendt]

77. And, I assume that is on record somewhere? n/t

[kevsand]

88. It's all online at the FEC.

As well as a number of sites that summarize the raw data to make it easier to browse. Google "federal" and "campaign" and "finance" and "disclosure."

It is also easy enough to verify that there are federal laws that codify legal limits to how much any individual can give to a federal candidate. It used to be $2,000 but now I think it's more like $3,000 or $3,500. Corporations and organizations also face similar restrictions.

[arendt]

90. After dinner, I will try that. n/t

[arendt]

73. See the exchange #62/#72 above. And, you don't even offer a cite. Sorry. Not buying. n/t

[kevsand]

84. That's because you don't really want to know.

I gave you the FEC, which you don't have to take my word for, you can go to it directly yourself. Or you can google "Obama" and "campaign finance" or almost any other combination.

But if you did that, you might have to read either the news articles or original documents that demonstrate everything that folks have tried to tell you on this thread, and that's not really what you want, is it?

I don't think that you are lazy or stupid. I just think you're being deliberately difficult. What your motive might be for that, I would never dare to guess. But it does get more annoying and obvious with each lame response you make here.

[arendt]

91. I said in #90 that I would do it after dinner. That is now. Please excuse me not being on your...

meal schedule.

I am not being deliberately difficult, although I think telling someone to grep through FEC records is "being difficult".

I am just not buying this "the people wanted him" line.

I will get back to you.

arendt

[kevsand]

120. My post #84 was well before your post #90,

so our respective dinner schedules are irrelevant. I was responding mainly to the tone of all your previous posts and replies to others in the thread up to that point. My apologies if it seemed harsh or snarky; it was just my frustration seeping through when it felt to me like you were being arbitrarily dismissive of the directions folks were trying to point to.

(By the way, I don't know anyone who greps anymore. There were never that many who did to begin with. It's certainly not necessary when using some of the third party interfaces. And Google really is your friend, even if it does require a little initiative and critical thinking to zero in on the relevant stuff.)

I really do hope you found at least some of the answers you were looking for. Happy hunting.

[arendt]

92. Here's hit number three from Googling "FEC 'obama campaign'". Its from Wikipedia:

Michael M. Bates wrote August 10, 2007, for The New Media Journal:<5>

In terms of money received from the oil and gas industry, Obama ranks third among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. He does the same with insurance, again coming in third. First place is reserved for Senator Christopher Dodd who, in his capacity as a committee chairman, can investigate the insurance industry if he wants to. Obama is number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry.

Senator Obama didn’t include banking interests among those nefarious special interests. Then again, with over $600,000 so far, he ranks number one among all candidates of either party in money from commercial banks.

And you may have noticed he didn’t mention teachers’ unions either. Surely that has little to do with the $1.3 million he’s gotten from the education industry, again putting him at the top spot among all announced Democrats and Republicans. ...

Let’s see him return the more than $5 million he’s taken from lawyers and law firms. He can also send back the more than $3 million from the securities and investment industry and attach a letter saying he doesn’t need or want special interest funding.

Then there’s the $1.3 million from real estate, the $1.3 million from the entertainment industry, and the $652,000 from hedge funds and private equity sources he’s accepted so far. Send it back with regrets. He could bow out of Oprahlalooza next month, saying that he doesn’t want to give even the slightest hint of impropriety by accepting all that dough from fat cats.

Moreover, he could return the $7,885 he’s taken from what used to be called Big Tobacco. Or if he’s still not been able to give up that filthy habit - smoking cigarettes that is, not taking special interest money -, he could request an in-kind contribution.

Senator Obama has benefited significantly from “bundling,” which involves supporters collecting smaller contributions, putting them all together, and giving them to a politician. According to Public Citizens’s White House for Sale Web site, Barack’s had 262 “bundlers” each gather at least $50,000 for him. One is Commonwealth Edison chairman Frank Clark. Perhaps the utility’s millions of customers who saw rates skyrocket by 24 percent on average wish he’d spend less time on politics and more on providing energy at a reasonable cost.

By my arithmetic, 262 x $50,000 = $13.1 Million, which, according to the ABC news story someone cited earlier, represents 50% of the money he raised in 1Q07.

That is not sounding like "lots of small contributions to me".

It sounds like enough small contributions to hide behind while you rake it in from the bundlers - just like everyone else.

arendt

P.S. I will keep digging. I'm sure someone will object to citing Ralph Nader.

[arendt]

96. Now I'm confused. CREWs total Incomplete+Non-disclosure is less than Nader's bundlers...

2003-2008 Source of Funds

Individual contributions
$79,260,283
(98.6%)

PAC contributions
$7,775
(0.0%)

Candidate self-financing
$0

Other
$1,084,604
(1.3%)


2003-2008 PAC Contribution Breakdown


Business
$666,153
(54.4%)

Labor
$286,400
(23.4%)


Ideological/Single Issue
$271,494
(22.2%)

How complete are this candidate's 2003-2008 campaign finance reports?

Full Disclosure
$66,406,801
(86.2%)

Incomplete
$2,451,146
(3.2%)

No Disclosure
$8,169,719
(10.6%)

© Copyright 2007. Center for Responsive Politics. All rights reserved.

So, now I have to check which of these guys is wrong!

Can you now see why I ask for cites? I have not got time to do this. But, I expect a candidate's supporters to have reliable cites available.

arendt

[kevsand]

122. They're probably all correct.

I think you may be confused about what some of these terms mean. "Bundled" contributions are still disclosed and itemized by source, because they have to follow the same laws as any other contributions. No individual can give more than the prescribed amount, no matter where they got it from or how it is channeled. A bundled contribution is just a convenient way of funneling a number of fully disclosed individual contributions for the sake of a little clout.

The other thing you have to realize is that when someone provides a breakout by industry, that often includes all of the individual donations from people who work in that industry. This is traceable because federal contributions over a certain amount require the listing of the donor's employer, if at all possible. From the numbers you cite, Obama seems to collect and provide that info a very high percentage of the time.

These summaries by industry are sometimes used to imply that the industry itself is buying the influence. While this is almost certainly true to some extent, there are also any number of private citizens who genuinely like a candidate and want to support them financially. The larger an industry, the more employees it has. The more employees an industry has, the more individual contributors there are likely to be among its workers.

In those particular cases where employees are donating on their own initiative, their employer may be entirely irrelevant to their support. The disclosure laws are important for tracking possible influence peddling, but sometimes they can be over- or mis-interpreted by people who have their own agendas.

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. OK. I'm in Illinois and my best guess to your question would be the Chicago Machine and Dick Durbin.

Durbin was Obama's mentor here in the state during the Senate race. He traveled everywhere with him. I know they went down south and could have met Blago, the Governor...he has a house in DuQuoin, Illinois and is my longtime friend's neighbor. I would think Durbin would be your answer and the Chicago Machine and maybe the governor.:) Just a guess though!

[arendt]

79. Thank you. Now, what is the Chicago machine like these days?...

I have a college friend who is a Jack Kemp Republican. (That says it all doesn't it? Delusional.) He hates Daley because he says "all Daley wants to do is waste my tax dollars making the city beautiful".

What is the Chicago Machine into these days?

arendt

[in_cog_ni_to]

108. I don't know. Probably into getting Obama elected. and keeping Blago out of jail.

I'm south of the city, so I don't really keep up with all the city scandals or the inner workings, but maybe someone who lives there could fill you in better than I can.

I do know Durbin is connected to Obama at the hip. If he's connected to Durbin, he's connected to the Dem money. That would include the Chicago Machine and Blago. That's more than likely where his early $$$$ came from....his Illinois connections.

Daley loves nature. He loves trees, flowers and bushes. He certainly does like to spend money on making the city beautiful and it shows. Chicago is one of the most beautiful cities in our country.

Here's an article that pretty much explains what Illinois politics are like these days:

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/01/political-corruption-behind-barack_06.html

Barack with the man he really didn't know:




I'm sure I'm not the only reporter who gets a steady stream of email from Chicago reform Democrats, grumbling when Obama casts himself as a life-long reformer. And one Chicago reader who isn't associated with a political campaign last week sent along something I don't think has ever been public before: this undated photograph of Obama and the indicted lobbyist, fixer, and former patron, Tony Rezko.

The L.A. Times had a good piece on these elements of Obama's past a couple of months ago, describing the compromises that come with Chicago politics, Obama's relationships with lobbyists at the time, and his courting of old-school fixers. To the occasional frustration of some Chicago liberals, he's also still making endorsements on the Daley machine side of Chicago politics, something Eric Zorn flagged long ago. That Chicago machine, also the political base of his chief advisor, David Axelrod, has been a solid bloc of support behind his presidential campaign.

Still, that pragmatism isn't something he advertises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/28/photo-surfaces-of-obama-w_n_78569.html?load=1&page=2#comments

[arendt]

112. I skipped Rezko, the rest is interesting on its own...

I didn't know about "The Outfit".

You know what my first reaction is?

Its that it sounds like the same mix of high ideals and gangland connections as JFK!

I never understood how JFK and RFK could pal around with Sinatra and that whole crowd and still be idealistic.
But JFK and RFK were filthy rich from day one. Rumor has it they felt they had to atone for Joe Sr's sins (backing the
Nazis, rum-running). And, with the rich, especially back then, hanging with the gangsters had a thrill attached to it.

But Obama? He hasn't been rich from the get-go. So, how does that mix play out here?

Lots to think about. Thanks.

----

If you're an honest reporter in Chicago, I don't know how you manage not to "have an accident".

arendt

[ellisonz]

123. Honestly, I don't think that's Obama in that picture.

The chin is wrinkled and Obama's isn't. Two, the head is longer than Obama's whose head is more roundish. Obama has bigger, rounder ears too. And since the date, location, and event at which the photo is not known I'm going to go with photo is part of the smear.

You can see a bigger version of that photo here: http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/28/131512/68

[MH1]

67. This might be the answer you are looking for:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d59656c-ac34-4e87-9fe9-9ae37b2e2653&p=1

But it's Kerry who provides the most vivid example of elite Washington's flight to Obama. Prior to his presidential campaign, Kerry had long thought of himself as an anti-establishment figure. "Late in 2002, early '03, he was the cool guy, married to Teresa Heinz, who did environmental stuff and had protested the (Vietnam) war," says Andrei Cherny, a former Kerry aide. Many of his early supporters, particularly top fund-raisers, had also stood apart from the Clinton establishment. Some, like Silicon Valley super-lawyer John Roos, had backed Bill Bradley. Others, like venture capitalist Mark Gorenberg, had only begun fund-raising actively toward the end of the Clinton era.

After he clinched the nomination, Kerry was keen to enlist the former president's help. (He believed Al Gore had made a mistake by distancing himself from Clinton in 2000.) But the decision created headaches. "There was never a sense that were less than one hundred percent committed to winning," says one longtime Kerry friend. "But there was a sense that, at key moments, their legacy or their role in the party was paramount." Not long after the GOP convention, for example, Kerry talked strategy with a bedridden Clinton. Kerry aides fumed when, a day and a half later, the ostensibly private conversation made the front page of The New York Times, bestowing a Yoda-like glow on Clinton while painting Kerry as a cipher.

For many in Kerry's orbit, the final straw came in 2006, after the senator mangled a joke about lousy students getting "stuck in Iraq." (Kerry had intended to needle Bush for "getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.") The fallout helped dash Kerry's hopes of another White House run. In the minds of his supporters, that's precisely what Hillary Clinton intended when she piled on two days later, calling the comment "inappropriate." "A lot of us were rip-shit pissed off at Hillary for putting her boot on his neck," says one dedicated fund-raiser. Once Kerry officially bowed out, several of his most loyal money men decamped for team Obama.

Kerry "officially bowed out" in January 2007.

Is that what you were trying to get someone to say? Or did you really not realize that when Clinton kneecapped Kerry, a lot of the people backing him would be looking for the anti-Hillary?

[arendt]

86. Thanks. That's interesting background. But, it begs the question of why Obama...

was perceived SO EARLY as being THE credible alternative to Clinton. That would imply that this junior senator with little track record was well wired in to the Democratic power elite. As posters downthread have indicated, Obama is wired into the Chicago Machine.

That may, in the end, be the answer I am looking for.

Thanks again for the info.

arendt

[Emit]

71. Brzezinski, for one, endorsed him last year - And here's some info on a few more backers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4238399&mesg_id=4238399

Warren Buffet, has backed him for some time, I'm assuming as a Senator and Pres candidate: http://obama.senate.gov/news/051121-obamas_national/

Penny Pritzker contributed to his senatorial campaign and is now national finance chairman of his Pres Campaign (Her brother works for Hillary Clinton, I think):

Pritzker, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser, whose family founded Hyatt Hotels, heads up the massive fundraising effort Obama is launching to bankroll what may be one of the most expensive Democratic primary campaigns ever.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/01/sweet_blog_scoop_penny_pritzke.html

Sources said his hometown backers include the mayor's brother, Bill Daley, former Alderman Bill Singer, real estate developer Neil Bluhm and Penny Pritzker.

http://www.nbc5.com/politics/10684769/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=news

The honorary chair is Mayor Daley with hosts the Saltzmans, Obama national finance chair Penny Pritzker, and Illinois finance co-chairs Jim Crown and John Rogers. On Sept. 5 there is another high ticket (host, $2,300) reception hosted by Alexi Giannoulias, the Illinois State Treasurer at Costa's a restaurant in Chicago's Greek Town.

Giannoulias, an early backer of Obama when he ran for the Senate in 2004, probably would not be treasurer today without the critical help of Obama, who made an ad to boost Giannoulias at a critical point in his contested Democratic primary where he was running against the hand-picked candidate backed by the Illinois Democratic Party chairman and House Speaker, Rep. Michael Madigan (D-Chicago)...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/08/sweet_blog_special_obama_is_on.html

During his 2004 Senate race, when he was starting to fund-raise on a national level for his Obama2004 fund, Obama steadfastly declined to say where he was going across the country to raise money.

Once running for president, Obama’s presidential team decided to put on his schedule the names of the cities Obama was traveling to for fund-raisers—but no other details-- after some reporters complained.

Besides transparency, another centerpiece of Obama’s campaign is his refusal to take money from federal lobbyists and political action committees for his presidential fund, created last February.

Once sworn into his Senate seat, Obama kicked up the level of his fund-raising for several political warchests and other Democrats including: HOPEFUND, his political action committee, which accepted donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees; his Obama2010 Senate re-election fund which accepted donations from those sources.

LIST OF CHICAGO HOSTS OF THURSDAY CHICAGO FUND-RAISER

Robert Blackwell, Neil Bluhm, Peter C.B. Bynoe, Frank Clark, Les Coney, Jim Crown, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Joe Gutman, Bruce Heyman, State Comptroller Dan Hynes, David Jacobson, Steve Koch, John Levi, Charles A. Lewis, Cindy Moelis, Quintin Primo, Penny Pritzker, Jim Reynolds,
Robert Rivkin, Desiree Rogers, John W. Rogers Jr., Alan Solow, Lou Susman, Tina Tchen, Grace Tsao ‐ Wu, Jim Tyree & Anne Wedner

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_secretive_about_fu.html#more



Video with Penny Pritzker: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=3958600



Soros and Wolf:

Within ten days, Obama had announced his intention to run and Clinton was officially in. A story in the Times reported that Obama had nailed two A-list New York donors: Soros and Wolf. But though Soros’s backing was a symbolic coup, it’s Wolf who has emerged as Obama’s most copious cash collector in the city so far—hosting two high-dollar cocktail parties, making countless calls, harvesting more than $500,000. As Wolf tells me about the soirées he’s hosted, he reaches into a meticulously organized scrapbook, takes out a photograph of him and Obama grinning madly, and tells me that I can keep it. “The way Barack has taken this nation with his rock-star status,” he says, “it’s very exciting!”..,

http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/

As a side note, during the Democratic National Convention, the MSM talking heads and others were talking about the up and coming Senator just prior to his keynote speech, called "The Audacity of Hope" or "OUT OF MANY, ONE."

Last night, one of the most celebrated and legendary figures of the Democratic Party, Senator Ted Kennedy, shared the stage with a young rising star who was just one year old when Kennedy was first elected to the Senate. Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for US Senate from Illinois. Political analysts say his speech last night secured his status as a rising star within the party. Here is Barack Obama.

http://i2.democracynow.org/2004/7/28/rising_star_senate_candidate_barack_obama

Edited to add links

[arendt]

76. Thanks. First facts I've been offered in this thread. Hard to parse, because I don't follow IL...

politics.

Still, it looks like a who's who of sane, socially responsible BIG MONEY.

Translation - Rockefeller Republican style money.

But, I could be wrong. Can you connect these people to policies?

(I notice that the article says that Soros was "symbolic".)

Thanks again.

arendt

[Emit]

80. I updated some links

Sorry to post and run -- my daughter has a BB game, but I'll check back and see if I can offer up more info to your inquiry

[Jane Austin]

126. Probably available on teh Google.

I don't know the answer to who were his first contributors, but you can find out.

[KoKo]

68. JFK supported Kenyan's coming to Harvard to study...Obama's Father was one

who was part of that program.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:koO8NxyWxSoJ:rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/jfk-brought-obamas-father-to-us-in-1960/+Obama+Scholarship+from+Kennedy+Foundation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[arendt]

81. And that explains his early money? Are you saying the Kennedy's supported him early? n/t

[KoKo]

100. The article talks about JFK intervetion to bring Kenyans to Harvard.

Apparently that's how Obama's father got in. Although Obama was 2 years old at the time and his father left to go to Harvard as part of this Kennedy Program and was in College in Hawaii...anyway that's what the article says.

[arendt]

101. But, how does that tell me why Obama got money and air time so early?...

You keep implying there is a Kennedy connection.

Way down thread, someone says there is an Obama=>Chicago Machine=> Kennedy connection. I can buy that.

I cannot comprehend how the connection you make has anything to do with money.

arendt

[Tatiana]

69. Ahem. When Oprah hosts personal fundraisers for you...

you really can rake in the $$$.

[arendt]

82. That was nine or ten months AFTER when I am asking. Did you read the word EARLY? n/t

[Tatiana]

105. He didn't have early money; he had early CLOUT (as in Dems urging him to run).

Where do you find that he had early $$$?

[arendt]

107. Someone already posted he raised $26M in 1Q07. That's big money at a time...

when traditionally, no one is running for anything. Yet, somehow, Obama was able to match Clinton dollar for dollar at a time when the typical grass roots person was going "wait a minute, didn't we just have an election?". The various reports are contradictory (see upthread), but there seems to be a lot of bundled money going to him early.

If you say he had clout, then you are just buying into my original question: who backs this guy?

Who are these Dems? They have to be party movers and shakers, because, as we have all seen, activists who support anti-corporate candidates go nowhere fast.

arendt

[Tatiana]

114. People were counting on him running for president.

The Kennedys encouraged him early on, but I really think it began with Senator Paul Simon (whose daughter also strongly supported Obama). The Simon legacy really helped overcome some of the resentment African-Americans (including myself) had towards his challenging of Congressman Bobby Rush and bungles he made early on in his political career. Mary Beth Cahill helped him get to the national stage at the DNC after being persuaded by him on the stump. By '04, you had several Kennedys, John Kerry, and back home Bill Daley (who can also raise $$$ like nobody's business - he is very well versed in the machinery and well-connected) who knew that he was "destined" (that is how one person who worked with him in Hyde Park described it to me) to run for President.

There is a quality that he has; a charm that is undeniable and I haven't seen it in any other political candidate other than Bill Clinton. My grandmother has donated to him and she is a Hillary supporter.

[arendt]

115. Sounds like we are converging on an answer...

everyone agrees that the Chicago machine - Daley, Durbin, you have added Simon - were early and influential supporters.

If you can sign off on that, then I am happy.

arendt

[Tatiana]

117. I agree. He could not have made it this far this fast without the machine.

(Kennedy support notwithstanding.) But I don't count Simon as part of the machinery. I think he was a good and honest politician. He personally intervened in a situation that was very important to me and I will forever be indebted to him. His seal of approval was really what made me revise my opinion of Obama (and I suspect many others who were initially skeptical of him).

He also has strong support among academia. Many former professors of mine support him, both politically and financially.

[DemBones DemBones]

87. Yes, but arendt is asking about the early money

Obama got, where it all came from.

[surfermaw]

78. I wouldn't doubt it was pay back for something

I remember when Carter was srunning he had to pay off Kennedys campaign debts.

[arendt]

83. The logic of this escapes me...

you are saying that the early money for Obama was a payback (to whom?).

And then you give the example of an unknown candidate (like Obama) who had to DO the paying back, according to you.

The two cases are 180 degrees apart.

Please explain.

arendt

[okasha]

95. The power brokers behind Obama are the Chicago Daley machine.

They're also his connection to the Kennedys.

[arendt]

97. First thing I've heard that really makes "gut feel" sense. Thank you. n.t

[KoKo]

102. That would make sense since Kennedy Patriarch, Old Joe was tied into Daley Machine.

Interesting that Obama ended up in Chicago after Harvard and then Columbia. Would have thought he'd have stayed in the NY Boston area. The money came from somewhere...full scholarship...the grandparents and then what connections he made as an "activist." :shrug:

[arendt]

104. Hey, I think we are converging on something here.

I am beginning to feel like I have learned something.

Thanks to all participants. I will monitor for more info. But, its late.

arendt

[robbedvoter]

94. Long standing power struggle - kennedys vs Clintons. Kerry's endorsement

was the first salvo. I expected him to help Hillary's opponent, but not to go with the MSM talking points.

[arendt]

98. Such a struggle sounds plausible. But I have never seen much in print. Can you give me some URLs? nt

[Orwellian_Ghost]

103. Why aren't others curious?

http://www.citizenagainstlies.com/?p=1488

“Obama’s “playing” is paying off. Obama has been richly rewarded for playing “the fool” on issues like tort law, Social Security, and national health insurance. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the 2008 Obama presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama ‘08), identified by CRP investigators as “a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry.” Of his top twenty election investors, fully eight are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics, “Presidential Candidate Barack Obama,” at
www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008).

...

It gets worse . . .

“According to the CRP, Obama’s presidential run was assisted by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics, “Obama’s Leading Contributors by Industry,” available online at www.opensecrets.org/ ). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics, ” Barack Obama Career Profile,” ). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a “Vice President for Community and External Affairs” at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273,618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).”

Still think he represents change? His big-money donors are privatization advocates.

__________________________________

A bigger question is how Obama's Exelon links might influence his broader electricity policy at the most critical period for U.S. electricity since the 1930s. Exelon, the Illinois version of Baltimore's Constellation Energy, is one of the country's biggest megawatt producers, the largest nuclear plant operator and a huge Obama backer through its executives and employees.

....

Exelon employees and others close to the company have given almost $195,000 to Obama, according to the latest records. Exelon is surpassed among corporate Obama donors by only Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman Brothers and a couple of other companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

One of Obama's biggest fundraising "bundlers," packaging money from multiple individuals, is Frank M. Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, the big Illinois utility owned by Exelon. Exelon director John W. Rogers Jr., chief of mutual fund company Ariel Capital Management, also has given thousands to Obama.

....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock25jan25,0,4656523.column

[arendt]

109. I wish I knew. This thread has been very revealing. No one questions. Everyone just swoons. n/t

[KoKo]

111. There have been posts about his ties to Excelon...and the contributions

but they sink like a stone. I posted a week or so ago with his funding compared to Edwards...and it went to archives. I wondered why no one was asking also... :shrug:

[arendt]

113. Well, I don't think this one can be said to have "sunk"...

nevertheless, it merely reinforces my opinion that the horse-race Permanent Campaign has successfully done its job. We are down to three candidates, and we have never talked much substance or issues. Its all just emotional manipulation.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions, as that would get me involved in a fight.

I will just say "thank you" to all who have actively provided genuine information.

And, I will say "wake up and look up some facts" to all those who blindly posted how confident they are with absolutely no evidence.

arendt

[KoKo]

110. Michelle raked in $273,618 in 2006 as "VP of Community Affairs for a Hospital?

Sheesh...that's some salary for a Public Relations job. :eyes:

[balantz]

124. Kickin' this thread.

Wish it wasn't too late to rec.

Perhaps these important connections being uncovered here will be revisited in another thread soon by those who have knowledge and insight into the underlying facts? It is interesting to have a look into what drives the political machines.