SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (1910)4/5/2007 9:41:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Obama’s Fundraising Advantage

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

April 5, 2007

We wouldn’t want to engage in the practice of “spinning the money before it is spent, ordaining mega-fund-raising as the sine qua non of a credible candidacy,” condemned by editorial page of The New York Times today. But let’s link to Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman’s assessment of the state of the 2008 Democratic presidential race anyway. “The plain truth is that the Clinton campaign has failed its first big test,” Polman writes on his personal blog. He adds, “We don’t yet know officially that Obama has outraised Clinton in primary season money, but ABC News, citing inside sources, reported last night that he collected $23 million, and Clinton $20 million. Her campaign has declined to confirm or deny.”

The sentence from Polman that Senator Clinton surely hopes doesn’t become a consensus judgment: “The bottom line is that, at least for now, she has lost the right to be considered the preemptive Democratic favorite.” He continues:

Here are perhaps the most telling statistics: Ninety percent of Obama’s first-quarter money was comprised of donations smaller than $100, and about half of those people gave about $25 each. Grassroots aside, he also drew some large contributions, of course. Overall, he got money from 100,000 people, averaging $250 apiece; Clinton drew from 50,000 people who averaged $520 apiece – with considerable help from her husband.

Translation: Obama is also well positioned to win the money race during the second quarter.

Here’s why: An individual donor can give a candidate up to $2300 for the primary season. Obama’s current pool of givers is twice as large as Clinton’s; their initial donations were half as large as Clinton’s. Therefore, he can tap his folks repeatedly – whereas there is every indication (and we won’t know all the stats until April 15) that far more of Clinton’s initial smaller pool of donors are already “maxed out” at $2300 apiece.

She might recoup, of course, by expanding her pool of donors this spring; on the other hand, some maxed-out Clinton donors could send money to Obama, just to hedge their bets.

The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein fingers the critical question for Obama: Can he do what Howard Dean could not? That is, can he translate netroots fundraising into votes at the ballot box? Klein writes at his personal blog:

Given the remarkable 100,000 donors, I’d guess you’re seeing widespread support from the “netroots,” broadly defined. In other words, from computer literate, highly-informed, well-educated, fairly young, political junkies who, due to the sophistication of online fundraising techniques and their particularly high response rate to such appeals, are emerging as an actual funding bloc even as they remain weak as a voting bloc. That said, most primary voters, as we saw with Dean, are not computer literate, highly-informed, well-educated, fairly young, political junkies. We’ll see whether Obama could build the bridge that Dean could not.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (1910)4/6/2007 2:41:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Trippi Predicts Brokered Convention; Gore Nominee in that Scenario?

dailykos.com



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (1910)4/11/2007 1:28:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Daddies in a Panic, and Mommy, Too
_____________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Columnist
The New York Times
April 11, 2007

The mind reels at the mind.

The Times’s science section devoted itself yesterday to the topic of Desire, the myriad ways in which the human mind causes the body to get turned on.

It now seems that instead of desire leading to arousal, as researchers once believed, arousal may lead to desire.

The brain, as D. H. Lawrence once wrote, is a most important sexual organ, and men and women have extremely varied responses to sexual stimuli.

As Natalie Angier, The Times’s biology expert, noted, research has shown that women differed from men “in the importance they accorded a man’s physical appearance, with many expressing a comparatively greater likelihood of being aroused by evidence of talent or intelligence — say, while watching a man deliver a great speech.”

This could explain why many Republican women are so frustrated. They have been deprived of the bristly excitement of hearing their men on the stump delivering great speeches for quite some time now.

The Daddy Party, sick with desire for a daddy, is like a lost child. John McCain, handcuffed to the Surge, announced yesterday he has the support of Henry Kissinger. Why not just drink poison? As the Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi slyly said, “Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn’t own.”

Rudy Giuliani, already haunted by the specters of Bernard Kerik’s corruption and Judy Nathan’s conjugal confusion, yesterday made things worse. He did the same thing John McCain did in South Carolina in 2000, a sickening pander the Arizona senator told “60 Minutes” Sunday that he did “for all the wrong reasons.” As Marc Santora reports from Montgomery, Rudy said he would leave the decision about whether to fly the Confederate flag over the Alabama State Capitol to the people of Alabama.

Even cable news showed little interest in President Bush’s big speech on Iraq yesterday, as he continued to excoriate Democrats for hurting the troops by trying to get an exit strategy, a day after Moktada al-Sadr’s spokesman denounced the Liberator as “the father of evil, Bush” while Sadr thugs burned and shredded American flags and shouted, “Leave, leave occupier.”

Four years ago, the conservative commentator Kate O’Beirne thrilled at the sight of President Bush strutting in his flight suit and mocked Bill Clinton’s doughy thighs, noting, “Women don’t want a guy to feel their pain, they want a guy to clean the gutters.” But on “Meet the Press” Sunday, she sorrowfully admitted that Republicans had lost their national security swagger because of Iraq, and now have “a real brand name problem” and “a competency problem.”

“It used to be people thought they might not much like big government, but they can run it,” she said of her party’s leaders. “Now they seem to like it fine, but not be able to run it at all.” A point underscored by this week’s Time cover: “Why Our Army Is at the Breaking Point.”

As Adam Nagourney and John Broder report in today’s Times, Republican leaders are despondent and jittery as they watch their major candidates strain in sycophantic ways to prove their ideological credentials even as they see W.’s administration and war turning into an ever-tighter noose. Watching the Democrats’ fund-raising advantage with alarm and astonishment, they concede it will be tough to hold the White House.

Mr. Nagourney and Mr. Broder quote Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who now lectures at Princeton, saying that the party does not have any candidates who are compelling. “I just don’t know,” he adds, “how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration.”

Except for Larry Birkhead, all the “Who’s your daddy?” brio this week belongs to Senator Barack Obama, who told David Letterman he would not be Hillary’s second on a ticket, and who remarkably managed to beat her on primary fund-raising with a more democratic and recyclable pool of donors.

That feat of strength led to the hilarious spectacle of Terry McAuliffe, who had been using the Bush-Cheney line of you’re-with-us-or-agin’-us to try to bully Democratic fat cats into giving solely to Hillary, telling ABC’s Jake Tapper: “Ultimately, forget the money. You’ve got to get the votes. And right now, Hillary wins in that category.”

Like the panic in the Daddy Party, the crazed sputtering in the once-dominant Mommy Camp is something to behold.

Hillary has been wielding Bill as a bludgeon on support and money. If you were ever behind him, you’d better fall into line behind her. But doesn’t that undermine her presentation of herself as a self-reliant feminist aiming to be the first Madame President? If you can only win by leaning so heavily on your man for your muscle, isn’t that a benign form of paternalism?



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (1910)4/12/2007 2:06:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Obama's Secret Weapon: The Return of Tom Daschle
______________________________________________________________

Endorsements. Key staffers. Fundraising lists. Brotherly advice. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle is making his presence felt behind the scenes in Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Howard Fineman
Updated: 2:23 p.m. CT April 10, 2007

Three years ago, it took a nasty, industrial-strength assault by Karl Rove & Co. to oust Democratic leader Tom Daschle from his Senate seat. But if Republicans thought they had seen the last of the resilient South Dakotan, they were wrong. He’s back, this time behind the scenes, as a sort of secret sauce in the surging presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.

Daschle spent 30 years on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide, House member, senator and ultimately Democratic Senate leader. Now he is providing newcomer Obama with valuable endorsements, staff, fundraising lists and brotherly advice. “He brings an unrivaled mix of policy knowledge and political expertise,” said Steven Hildebrand, an Obama senior campaign advisor. He ought to know: a fellow South Dakotan, he ran Daschle’s last Senate campaign.

Money talks and Daschle knows the language. Although three years distant from the Hill (he is now a law firm consultant and lecturer at Georgetown), Daschle has carefully maintained his mailing list of 85,000 donors, and he is renting it to only one candidate – Obama. I am told that Daschle is about to do a fundraising letter for the campaign as well. “He is incredibly well-liked by Democrats,” said Hildebrand. “He really doesn’t have any enemies in the party.”

His friends include an array of former staffers, friends and protégés who are working for Obama, among them Hildebrand, Senate chief of staff Pete Rouse, chief fundraiser Julianna Smoot, communications boss Robert Gibbs, press aide Dan Pfeiffer and research director Devorah Adler. Rouse, who has known Daschle for 30 years, was Obama’s first and most important congressional hire.

An edge over Clinton
Daschle’s unusually early endorsement of Obama last February gave the newcomer desperately-needed instant clout among insiders who were resigned to the inevitability of Hillary Clinton, but praying for an alternative. “What Daschle brought was credibility,” said an insider close to both men, “and now they have developed a good personal relationship.” The two men share a similar approach to both the process and substance of politics: a certain soft-spoken meticulousness, and a desire to blunt the sharp edges of partisanship.

Interestingly – tellingly – it was Obama who reached out to Daschle. In 2004, Obama was cruising to an easy victory in the Illinois Senate race, and had a lot of unused cash on hand. He gave a lot of it – some $85,000, according to Hildebrand – to Daschle, who was under White House siege in South Dakota. Even before he was sworn in, Obama knew who he wanted for his chief of staff: Rouse. Ironically, Daschle advised Rouse, a veteran with 30 years service on the Hill, to leave the Congress and take a lucrative lobbying position. But Obama sold Rouse, and in the process began the task of wooing Rouse’s boss.

An Obama surrogate
Now Daschle and Obama talk regularly – the two have had a number of quiet dinners – and Daschle will soon be playing a major role on the campaign trail, serving as a mild-mannered but well-liked surrogate among party faithful.

I can see him being especially helpful in Iowa, where the almost-too-earnest caucus culture is tailor-made for Daschle’s diligent approach to the game. “Iowa is Daschle’s kind of place,” said Hildebrand. That might make it Obama’s, too.

One other thing. If Obama wins the nomination, Daschle will be a top contender for running mate. Far-fetched? Maybe. South Dakota is a red state, and one with the fewest possible electoral votes: three. But in 2000, political novice George W. Bush chose a congressional veteran from a sparsely-populated state as his reassuringly experienced running mate. Is Tom Daschle the Democratic answer to Dick Cheney? Then Daschle would be back, big time.

URL: msnbc.msn.com