Friday’s campaign round-up

July 11, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the Obama campaign only raised $30 million in June, a number the Journal described as “underwhelming.” Soon after Obama spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer responded, “The Wall Street Journal report of our fundraising numbers is way off the mark. It appears that after 18 months, some in the press still haven’t realized that anyone who is talking about numbers doesn’t know what our numbers are.”

* Speaking of fundraising: “On a conference call with reporters, the McCain campaign said it has $95 million cash-on-hand, with most of that money — about $67 million — held by the Republican National Committee. Campaign manager Rick Davis also said McCain was outspending Barack Obama on the airwaves by a wide margin.”

* North Dakota is a solid, reliable “red” state, right? Maybe not: “John McCain and Barack Obama are tied in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of North Dakota voters. Both men earn 43% of the vote. When leaners are included, McCain holds a statistically insignificant one-point advantage, 47% to 46%.”

* Rasmussen also has good news for Obama in Wisconsin, where Obama now leads by 10, 52% to 42%.

* Running-mate news: “Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has requested information from Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd as part of its search for a possible vice presidential candidate.”

* More running-mate news: “On Fox, former Clinton chief strategist Howard Wolfson indicated that Hillary Clinton is not being formally considered as Obama’s running mate, in that she has not been asked to undergo the formal vetting process.”

* Yesterday, McCain went after Obama on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, saying, “This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote.” In reality, there are two lies in the same attack — McCain didn’t vote to condemn the IRG, and Obama agrees that the IRG deserves to be labeled a terrorist organization.

* McCain has a new TV ad targeting Latino voters.

* Phil Gramm still thinks he’s right.

* Former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney is the favorite to win the Green Party presidential nomination.

* In New Jersey, Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D) lead is a little wider than it was, with the incumbent now leading by seven 13, 49% to 36%.

49 minus 36 = what now?

  • obama won’t get another slim dime for me and I will not do any of the volunteer work I signed up for either – he is just another sell-out.

    That fundraising number must be wrong, it can’t possibly include the money (or promises for future support) from at&t and the telecoms.

  • Former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney is the favorite to win the Green Party presidential nomination.

    As a Georgian very familiar with McKinney (and, incidentally, Bobb Barr), and somebody who sympathizes with the Green Party’s platform, I can say with confidence that nominating her would be a mistake. She’ll embarrass herself and her new Party in no time at all.

    Unfortunately it appears that the Green’s will go the way of the Libertarians by sacrificing quality for quantity (of news coverage, that is). That’s a shame.

  • i guess its time to get flamed……..

    i know people are upset over obama’s fisa vote. i didn’t like it either. but i never anticipated that obama would do everything exactly the way i thought he would. i anticipate there will be occasions where he does something i don’t like. but, you know what? that’s life. taking everything together, obama is doing a great job and will continue to get my support. dodd was my candidate of choice, and i still think his stance on many issues more closely match my own. however, he’s not the candidate, obama is. and like his stand on fisa or not, he’s still a helluva lot better than the other candidates running.

    people on this blog running around withdrawing their support over this one issue simply appear childish to me. i know, you’re all going to say, but this is the constitution! it is, and we will have the opportunity to fix it. please stop posting your disgust in every single post that even mentions obama. it is really getting tiring.

    flaming will begin in 5, 4, 3……….

  • Mark (#3),

    So, you would rather see McCain become president? The truth is, no candidate is going to agree with you on every issue. Besides, the Patriot Act is the bigger 4th Ammendment problem. Failure to support Obama is just asking to be shot in the foot. Think about the SCOTUS, healthcare, education, ending the war in Iraq…and on and on.

  • “Phil Gramm still thinks he’s right.”

    The media is focusing on the “whiners” part – but the key is the “mental recession” part – McCain cannot distance himself from that, because that is part of McCain’s official platform – that the problems in the economy are mostly psychological.

  • How many of those threatening to withdraw their support for Obama over one issue or another mocked the Hillbots for threatening to withhold their support?

  • Yesterday, McCain went after Obama on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, saying, “This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote.”

    Here’s where Obama gets to say, “I voted for FISA to protect our country while Senator McCain refused to vote.”

  • just bill said:
    people on this blog running around withdrawing their support over this one issue simply appear childish to me. [deletia]

    flaming will begin in 5, 4, 3……….

    2, 1 Well bill it really depends on what that ONE issue is, doesn’t it? Not all issues are equal. Some go to the very core. Obama needs to learn that you don’t defuse EVERY issue. Some you fight for.

    As for people withdrawing their vote or even their support that’s all a very personal issue. It means more to the person making the decision than it has any real effect on the campaign. A person’s vote is not responsible for one candidate winning or for one candidate losing.

    Flame-thrower is now off.

  • Oh, and Obama, never underestimate the campaign contribution-generating power of running against a Clinton. Looks like the wild projections of huge money coming into the Obama campaign aren’t panning out.Maybe he shouldn’t crap on his progressive base.

  • Dennis-SGMM said:
    How many of those threatening to withdraw their support for Obama over one issue or another mocked the Hillbots for threatening to withhold their support?

    I still wonder how many Obamaites mocked Hillbots after they themselves said they would never vote for Clinton.

  • just bill, I will not flame you on FISA, courtesy of Prup’s posts, here:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16158.html

    Dale, you should revisit the discussion from last night as well. What you refer to as “defusing” is actually one of the most aggressive concepts of “total war” ever taught. In the end, it won’t be the telcos that pay for the crime; they were just accomplices who might very well have been placed in an untenable position by the real criminals (and yes—criminal coercion by what we all know know to be an authoritarian regime CAN, indeed, happen that high up in the corporate realm. It will be Bush—and Cheney—and their cohorts who will eventually have to face both pure, unadulterated Justice—and the irreversible onslaught of civil actions.

  • Sistah Souljah moments are all the rage lately. What I’d like to see is a moment when a candidate fights for their base instead of dissing them.

  • Steve, they will never “have to face both pure, unadulterated Justice” because obama and the democrates initiated and totally capitulated to the most unpopular president in US history – effectively shutting off any “discovery” or real look at what happened.

    They are also traitors and have failed their duty of office – if you think the same crew (and remember – obama outrighted LIED about filibustering telecom immunity), you are much more ignorant than the average obamabot.

  • Steve said: . It will be Bush—and Cheney—and their cohorts who will eventually have to face both pure, unadulterated Justice—and the irreversible onslaught of civil actions.

    Let me check with John, but I think I might call you a dreamer.

    We can excuse Obama with: That’s just tactics. And that’s just tactics. And that’s just tactics. Oh wait, he really meant it!!!

  • “* Running-mate news: ‘Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has requested information from Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd as part of its search for a possible vice presidential candidate.’”

    Now there is a vice presidential candidate I could get behind. But having a liberal, northeastern senator as running mate would seem to defy conventional wisdom.

  • “How many of those threatening to withdraw their support for Obama over one issue or another mocked the Hillbots for threatening to withhold their support?”

    Actually I think many of them are pretty much the same people (see the joan walsh piece on salon about Obama’s “betrayal” and how disappointed that made her feel when she was never on board to begin with.) I’m bummed, too, and would have liked to see him take on FISA differently but I sent more money anyway this week because these candidates have significant and meaningful differences and I still land solidly on Obama’s side whether that be his role as “the most liberal person in the senate” or a “alarmingly centrist triangulator”.
    So yes, I expect the republican trolls and irrational Clinton diehards to continue to hate Obama and be quite vocal about it. Knock yourselves out. Fortunately for this nation, elections are not decided on the political blogs.

  • people on this blog running around withdrawing their support over this one issue simply appear childish to me. -just bill

    While I’m not in the mood to douse you in gasoline (besides, that’s too expensive these days), I would suggest there is a grey area between withdrawing some support and the level of enthusiasm I had for him before his support of this awful FISA bill.

    Like mark, I was all set to volunteer, I was sending him money on a regular basis, and I had just bought a bumper sticker which now sits on my desk instead of on my car.

    I still support him in this contest, but I have definitely had my excitement sapped. I no longer send him money, and I will not volunteer.

    I understand, and I believe most others so offended by his action concerning FISA, that no politician will ever agree with us 100% of the time. I have accepted positions I disagree with Obama on in the past on several issues, such as gay marriage.

    But like you anticipated, this is of the utmost importance because it deals with the privacy rights of every citizen of the country and the rule of law, two things repeatedly ignored and disrespected by the current administration.

    So please forgive us our disdain. Most of us are still rational about our future votes, but like myself have been left with diminished hope that real change is coming.

  • As someone who’s immensely disheartened about the FISA legislation passing and about Obama’s (unnecessary, all things carefully considered) role in that, and who has nonetheless never considered not voting for him, I have to say the tone of much of the criticism has puzzled me.

    I’m not talking about people being really pissed about FISA–it wasn’t just any bill, but one that goes to the heart of our Constitution and has enormously negative implications down the road–I’m talking about how many people turned on a dime from being hugely excited about Obama to being hugely done with him.

    I always thought the Clintonite charges of teenage-style crushes, dreaminess and naivete directed at Obama supporters were overstated, and I still believe that most Obama backers haven’t gone anywhere near that level of extremism. But when I keep hearing things like, “I trusted that he’d change America–until that vote!” and “I went from loving him to despising him–in one day!” I wonder if more of the accusations of starry eyes were accurate than I’d previously thought.

    One can argue that no one thought he would take this position on an issue of such fundamental importance to our civil rights and liberties and the rule of law, especially when he’d explicitly taken the opposite stance not long ago. That’s totally legitimate. But the rapidity and the ferocity with which some people have fallen into and out of total love with this candidate suggests that many people really did invest this guy with a hope that really isn’t supported by our current culture or by any experience we’ve had with how politics and politicians work in the U.S. What I’m saying is that, while I never thought Obama would do an unmistakable about-face and let us down on something this critical, I did know that he or anyone else we chose would let us down on some issues, and I’m now getting the impression that many people really believed that he wouldn’t, that he’s not a politician, that we wouldn’t have to have our hearts broken this time.

    Well, we progressives always have to have our hearts broken. The goal is to minimize the damage by choosing the candidate who will do the least harm and if we’re lucky, the most good. We did that. That hasn’t changed even though this particular heartbreak was the worst kind imaginable to those of us who’ve writhed in pure agony during this years-long assault on the Constitution.

    Maybe it’s because I’ve followed Obama’s career for years and always warned that the best we could expect from this center-left man was improvement (still a very worthy goal, and I still strongly believe that this improvement will be more marked under him than it would have been under Clinton). Maybe the reaction is magnified because people commenting on blogs are the most vocal, the most passionate, the most prone-to-emotion voters there are. (I direct all those adjectives at myself, too.) But I’m standing a little bit apart from this one wondering why it’s been as shocking as it’s been for so many of you. Painful, yes, deep pain that I share, but this shocking…I’m having trouble understanding it.

  • I fully agree with just bill@5. He won’t get any flaming from me.

    This is a problem that I foresaw early in the race. Obama, who I fully support, became the repository of many Dems hopes and dreams. They saw a figure, cut in the mold of Bobby Kennedy, on whom they could place their dreams of a better America. (Which, of course, we badly need).

    And, so, when he voted on FISA, lots of people were “disappointed”. Well, as a 57 year old, long time Democratic supporter, I KNEW this would happen. Please know that Obama is the consummate politician and he IS on our side.

    Please go back to work for him. And, support him financially. The alternative is so bad that we’d lose all if it occurs.

  • I’m not talking about people being really pissed about FISA–it wasn’t just any bill, but one that goes to the heart of our Constitution and has enormously negative implications down the road–I’m talking about how many people turned on a dime from being hugely excited about Obama to being hugely done with him. -Maria

    I think there is some truth to what jeff said, and that some of the apparent 180s are simply trolls, however, I too feel a little shocked about some poeple who turned on a dime.

    For months, people railed against changing FISA, and then as Obama expressed his support, it suddenly had a vocal group of supporters in the progressive community. So I think there are still those people with “teenage-style crushes,” and many of them are rationalizing Obama’s support for this bill.

    Those are the same people that can’t accept the coexistence of anger over this issue while still supporting him in the election overall and persist in labeling such as purist and ideological, or as MsMuddled said, I was simply showing my true colors.

    Apparently, in some people’s democracy, there is no room for disagreement.

  • Well, that’s a good point, doubtful. I’ve also been disgusted by the lengths to which people who’d previously worked hard against this bill’s passage will go to justify Obama’s support. My favorite has been the theory that he’s so brilliant that he must have a secret plan and this is all part of it, so let’s just trust him and stop all this second guessing.

    And I share your annoyance with people who think the expression of just anger over this legislation is a wholesale abrogation of support for the Democratic party and a pie-in-the-sky purism that is the enemy of everything we’re fighting for, blah blah. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I took a half-informed newbie apart who accused me of the very same thing. What the hell are blog comment threads for if not to freely yak about this stuff?

    But I don’t think you’ve ever suffered from any belief that Obama was morally infallible. I think your anger is quite appropriately directed at this vote on this bill, and I hope it was moderately obvious that what I wrote in my last comment was referring to a whole different mindset.

  • And for what it’s worth, Obama is my senator. I still have an Obama for Senate 2004 sign in my garage. He wasn’t my first choice for President and I never set him on a pedestal of perfection, but we need to stop acting like it’s only the disillusioned cultists who have a problem with this FISA bill. We need to stop acting like Obama would have been the lone voice of decent. Several prominent Democrats and the ever respectable Bernie Sanders voted the right way.

    We’ve turned the argument of respecting the constitution into a left versus center versus right issue. We’ve allowed the fear of terrorists to bind our hands while the government overstepped its boundaries all in the name of protection which we didn’t even get.

    Bush was breaking the law long before 9/11 and it certainly didn’t stop that from happening. And when it came time to hold him accountable or legalize his crimes, Obama came down on the wrong side.

    As Ben Franklin said, when we give up freedom for security we end up with neither. Under the Bush Administration we have had neither, and unfortunately Obama just put his stamp of approval on it, all because he’s scared of being labeled soft on terrorism.

    I’m sorry if I find it hard to be enthusiastic about change after that.

  • Maria –

    I think what you’ve outlined is part of it.

    OTOH – while I never really bought into the “Obama” phenomenon, and never became a huge supporter, I did end up casting my vote for him in our primary. That ballot was cast because I thought there was a chance that he had better instincts than Clinton in the policy arena (see his comments re: Iraq War vs. hers at the time). Both Obama and Clinton had, at the time, promised to support a filibuster of this awful FISA legislation and to vote against it if it had Telco immunity in it.

    Had he said he was happy with the FISA legislation at the time and planned to vote for it, I would have said “fair enough – you’re a moron, but thanks for letting me know where you stand” and cast my ballot for Clinton instead. He didn’t. His statements on the issue at the time echoed my own thoughts, and echoed the other Dem contenders for the nomination, and so it was a non-issue in my decision process. And then – BEFORE the general election – he broke that promise and voted for the same heinous bill he’d denounced. And not only voted for it, he actually endorsed it and called it a “good compromise”.

    I’m jaded. I knew he was going to be a disappointment eventually – I just never figured it would happen BEFORE the general election had even taken place. I thought we’d get the election cycle, then a 1-3 month honeymoon period and THEN the “real Obama” would come out. This move actually floored me, despite being jaded.

    So, no, I won’t be volunteering for Obama (it was going to be tough to work up much enthusiasm for that anyway). And now I won’t be giving him money either – unfortunately those donations are now earmarked for the legal fight that the ACLU and the EFF are putting together for this law he endorsed and I don’t have unlimited funds. I’m still voting for him, and I’m still attempting to get my friends to vote for him (a tough sell – many of them don’t bother to vote anymore because they’re even more jaded than I am), but that’s about all the enthusiasm I have for him. I’ll be volunteering some effort for some of our local Dems on the ticket this year, but I just can’t work up any enthusiasm to go volunteer for a guy who can’t even keep from breaking an election promise until AFTER the election is over.

  • I think your anger is quite appropriately directed at this vote on this bill, and I hope it was moderately obvious that what I wrote in my last comment was referring to a whole different mindset. -Maria

    It was, but there are others here who seem to think I’ve lost my ever loving mind.

  • Yes, Nony, as I said it’s a) the importance and implications of this particular bill and b) the fact that Obama revoltingly about-faced on it that engender the absolutely righteous anger and disappointment. I’m not questioning that; I fully share those emotions.

    I’m talking about some of the reactions–and I’m honestly not finger-pointing at anyone here, because I think commenters on this blog have been considerably more thoughtful about why they’re angry than folks at many other progressive blogs have been–that border on “Monday I loved him, Tuesday I hated his guts!” It’s those people I find puzzling, because while my disgust at this legislation is as deep as anybody else’s, my admiration for Obama was never as extreme as it now seems many people’s was. It’s the 180-degree instant shift that surprises me, because I believed that very few people occupied both of those extremes. (I still argue that most Obama supporters don’t.)

    This is a point that’s interested me but that I hadn’t seen discussed; the conversation on this issue has seemed to land in other spots. So I threw it out there.

  • I agree with both bill AND mark. Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say “he’s just another sell-out,” but he is the first politician I have ever given money to, and I’m not going to give him anymore. On the other hand, I’m still pretty excited about him, because I never expected him to be superhuman. I know I’m not the only one who has closed her wallet, though, so I’m not surprised by the fundraising numbers.

  • Discovery, Chelsea, need not take place while Bush is still in office. Once he’s out, the “executive privilege” gambit disappears.

    These fools believe that they’ve gotten away with everything; they’ve saved the evidence for their great, big, tell-all, “How I F***ed America Good” book deals. They want their movie rights, and their big pay-outs from the international right-wing lecture circuits, and their humongous bonus checks for appearing at all the neocon parties in South America a few years from now.

    They actually, honest-to gods-believe that no one will ever have the courage to come after them—that no one will ever dare to break into those man-sized safes and triple-wall vaults at SMU—that no one will start taking these heinous scum at gun-point and spiriting them away to foreign soil, where they can be legitimately tried and convicted for their global crimes.

  • Might I suggest that the people for whom the FISA vote will close your wallets to Obama consider directing your support to other organizations who share your priorities (such as the ACLU, or Feingold’s Progressive Patriot’s PAC), rather than simply removing yourselves from the process?

    I pretty much count myself with Maria on this one: I’m disappointed and angry, but temper that with having known it would happen sooner or later, and the big picture of winning the white house is too important for this to be a deal-breaker. (and, this was not just “any vote”.

  • doubtful I apologize for coming down on you, I got a little irritated.

    peace?

  • I’m talking about some of the reactions … that border on “Monday I loved him, Tuesday I hated his guts!”

    Ah, got it.

    Well, I think a good number of them are trolls who are misrepresenting themselves – McCain supporters who show up pretending to be outraged Dems looking to derail the conversation, or Clinton/Edwards/Dodd supporters who weren’t actually all that enthused about Obama but want to express their anger and think it sounds better if it comes from a deflated supporter than if it comes from someone who didn’t really care for him much in the first place.

    And then I think there are there’s the more honest outrage – the “Obamabots”. The mostly younger folks who projected their hopes and dreams onto Obama in such a manner that they started seeing in him everything they ever wanted in a politician. They, somehow, didn’t quite grasp the whole “Change We Can Believe In” was just the old “he’s a different kind of politician” cliche wrapped up with a new slogan and a new face. Possibly because they’re young enough that they haven’t seen many actual elections yet (although this isn’t completely accurate since some folks who’ve turned on a dime were comparing him to Bobby Kennedy just a few weeks ago, and even though it’s the Internet and you don’t really know who is who, my assumption is that anyone who compares a pol to Bobby Kennedy was probably at least of an age where they were politically aware during his presidential run.)

    And then there was the narrative battle that seems to have engrossed a number of folks on the left blogosphere – Clinton was the DLC/establishment candidate. Obama was the fresh new (not to mention young) candidate that the netroots could “put its mark on” by backing him and toppling the Clinton-monster. To have him suddenly pull a 180 on this and not only make a politically calculated move, but to have it be on the issue that they feel is more important than almost any other issue out there is probably quite crushing. Having Clinton vote the right way rubs salt into the wound (and requires many posts from those who are still backing Obama about how “if the roles were reversed they would have voted the other way” despite no real basis for knowing anything about that alternate universe, to justify their support).

    I’m sure there are other reasons. I’d be interested in hearing some “de-conversion” stories myself.

  • Oh and Steve –

    Discovery, Chelsea, need not take place while Bush is still in office. Once he’s out, the “executive privilege” gambit disappears. These fools believe that they’ve gotten away with everything;

    Well, they might. If Obama turns out to be another Bill Clinton, then their crimes won’t get investigated. The Congress isn’t interested in pushing it, so if the new guy is willing to give them a pass they’ll get away with it and we’ll probably be doing this dance again in another 8 years.

    I’m hoping that Obama isn’t another Bill Clinton, and that he’ll be more aggressive about this than Clinton was, but I’m doubtful. Especially given that the vibe I get off of his campaign has been (since the start actually) “Bill Clinton Part Deux”. Time will tell I suppose.

  • I’ll give Obama money again I suppose, as soon as Hillary’s campaign debt is resolved that is.. Dodd would be a good VP but “Obama-Dodd” (said quickly/ran together) is not going to be very catchy with the average xenophobic voter.

  • Watch the Obama-Hagel trip to Iraq. I smell “vetting process” in this one (at least senior cabinet post, if not VP)—and I think to myself: “It’s the ultimate F-you to the McCain/Lieberman pact….”

  • Bush crimes will not be investigated or pursued. There is a long tradition of letting bygones be bygones going back centuries.

    If we’re lucky, Bush’s crimes will tarnish Jeb and the rest of his cabinet and force emergence of a new generation of Republican crooks with new names (just as the current bunch were nurtured by Nixon). These are already in the pipeline, so people who want to get even need to figure out who these people are so they can link them back to their positions in Bush’s administration, in advance of their campaigns.

    I see that Ridley at HuffPo is already calling Nader a racist, adding him to a list of Democrats who had the nerve to campaign against Obama. I suppose Cynthia McKinney (although African American) is a racist too, since she soon may be running against Obama. And that old racist Jesse Jackson joins the list for expressing disgust over Obama’s latest “community activism”. If Michelle ever sued Barack for divorce, she would obviously be a racist too. What other reason could she have for such an action?

  • I know, Jeb isn’t in his cabinet. Careless phrasing.

    I donated to Clinton again today. I was inspired by the commenters who suggested I hadn’t really given her any money. I also unsubscribed from the rest of the newsletters I was receiving, including MoveOn. Interestingly, one of the supplied reasons they let you choose from is “endorsement of Obama,” so I am obviously not the only one with that reason for cutting them loose.

  • Obama is very popular here in Germany. But the medias here don´t tell us about his unpopular attitudes towards gun possession, war in afghanistan or death penalty. Anyway I think 1. he will be a good president 2. you can´t become president of the US when you don´t make this concessions.

    • Comments are closed.