Heir Apparent Deposed?

-->
Bush Administration

Another bit of good news — Barack Obama’s first-quarter fundraising came very close to Hillary Clinton’s, which puts a big dent in the assumption that Senator Clinton’s nomination is inevitable. Let the competition begin.

Even better — according to this chart at MyDD, Obama’s money came from 100,000 donors, while Clinton’s money came from 50,000 donors. That means Obama is getting smaller donations from more people, while Clinton is getting bigger donations from fewer people.

Share Button
9 Comments

9 Comments

  1. PoliticalCritic  •  Apr 4, 2007 @1:16 pm

    Great number posted by Barack Obama! Couple that with Hillary’s slide in the polls and Obama becomes the new frontrunner for the Democratic nomination!

  2. Bonnie  •  Apr 4, 2007 @1:41 pm

    Off topic; but, thought Maha would find this interesting:

    Evangelicals hope to ‘reach’ Buddhists

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/325856,CST-NWS-lama04.article

  3. Sachem515  •  Apr 4, 2007 @3:14 pm

    I’m confused about Maha’s feelings regarding Sen Obama.

    In your piece on 4/2 “Dem’s Post-Veto Strategy” you said, “On the other end of the wimp scale, Barack Obama believes the Senate will cave and pass a bill without the timeline because no one “wants to play chicken” over funding the troops”.

    Where do you stand on the Obama candidacy?

  4. maha  •  Apr 4, 2007 @3:19 pm

    Where do you stand on the Obama candidacy?

    I’m glad he’s running. If he can challenge the Hillary Clinton “inevitability” meme, grand. I haven’t endorsed anybody for the nomination, but I assume (because it’s always true) that the nominee will not be a perfect reflection of what I want in a candidate.

  5. Donna  •  Apr 4, 2007 @3:48 pm

    We have so many good Democratic candidates that I am feeling wealthy, indeed. Sort of what the psychologists call an approach/approach conflict, meaning the choices are all good. But, not being wealthy, I did send Obama’s campaign some of my scarce cash, and and delighted that my tiny amount got to help build that big total for the first quarter. The most memorable line from Obama [for me] is when he said, “I’m not against war per se, but I am against a dumb war.” I may have gotten the quote a bit off, but not the timing. Obama said that in 2002, about the time I was feeling very suspicious about all the hype over Iraq.

  6. Kevin Hayden  •  Apr 4, 2007 @5:49 pm

    I’m seeing no real surprises about who’s winning in this political panhandling game. I can say that the staggering costs – triple over 2004 – make me want to gag.

    It’s not a concern of the corporate media, of course, because they make hay selling the ads funded by this largesse.

    Half of me mirrors your pursuit, Maha. I want a good candidate that imperfectly will still do much of what I think the country needs.

    The other half wants to target the biggest fundraiser in each party to get defeated in their primaries, just as a statement of opposition to unclean elections that should be publicly financed.

    None of the candidates is indispensable to our nation’s fortunes. The concept of a white knight (no racism intended) is not something wise to seek, imo. Someone who can set a moral tone with a positive vision is sufficient and preferable to some sort of savior.

    The monarch model leads to unreal expectations and leads too many down dangerous paths, because benevolent monarchs are just too rare.

  7. sisyphus  •  Apr 4, 2007 @6:53 pm

    I’d rather Obama would say he’s only for a just war.

    In line with the discussion – I’m interested in what each of you, given the choice of only two issues/wishes for a candidate, what they will be.
    Mine is (1)to end the war and (2)single payer health care.

  8. zeus  •  Apr 5, 2007 @12:17 am

    Not only has the presidential race started WAY too early, now we must be subjected to hourly news updates about who has raised the most money as though civilization relies on this information. I have made the decision to switch the channel anytime there is talk about the 2008 elections and the $ involved, at least until the top moneymakers knock out the less fortunate (one of whom might have made the best president). And when that finally happens, I only hope there is a candidate left standing that DESERVES my vote.

  9. Chief  •  Apr 5, 2007 @8:37 am

    Obama, $25 million. Impressive? Well, yeah! Much more impressive to me is the report that he took no money from PACs and other special interest groups.

    Kind of reminds me of another politician, or ex-politician, I remember. Glenn Poshard represented the IL 20th CD for two years until the 1990 census redistricting. When the 22nd was abolished he ran and won in the 20th CD for 8 years. As promised he did not run again for re-election to Congress. He ran for Governor of Illinois against George Ryan and lost by a hair. The mayor of Chicago, another Dem, would not endorse Poshard. Anyway, Fitzgerald got a conviction on Ryan for a “driver’s license for money” scheme. If Ryan’s not in jail now, he is waiting on his appeal to be heard.

    The fact that Obama had over 100,000 donors to Clinton’s reported 50,000 donors is also significant. More broad based support? And most gave less that $100. And I donated zero, nothing, nada to anyone’s campaign.

    Interesting times.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile