The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama is running into some unexpected fundraising trouble with efforts to recruit big-dollar Clinton donors to his side not going as well as he hoped, and internet contributions falling off their previous furious pace. I wondered about this possibility in late June, and it seems to be coming true. The combination of Obama mostly focusing on showing his more centrist side while also maintaining a stable lead in the polls seems to me to discourage activists from giving to the campaign. People are thinking to themselves, why not save that money and by a G3 iPhone or give it to progressive Senate candidate?
« Why The Reimbursement Fight Matters | Main | Iraq in Strategic Context »
The Cash Machine
11 Jul 2008 10:15 am
Comments (188)
indeed. taking money out of your wallet is a difficult task when you're using one hand to hold your nose.
I am withholding my contributions because of his FISA bill. Obama's move on that isn't a centrist swing, because neither party is really the part of law-breaking or constitution-trampling.
He can earn my financial support back, but I'd imagine there are many people like myself that have no intention of supporting someone compromising integrity on what should be such an easy issue.
Yeah I'm not willing to give him any money now thanks to all of the shit he's been pulling. Maybe I can make a more rational decision later but right now I want a refund.
You mean people like the profoundly hypocritical Markos? The fact that through the end of June 2008 he hadn't given a single dime to Obama is, well, a disgrace.
really, patrick and nathan? Who would you rather vote for? If you want the democrats to win, you have to realize that not everybody in this country is one, and in order to win a general election, you have to appeal to people who aren't democrats.
If people stop giving to him, not only is he going to have money, but perceptions about him are going to change for the worse.
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Me too. And I had such high hopes. Prefer to give to real liberals.
My initial plan was to continue my $100/month through the campaign. FISA changed that. He gets none of my money now. That goes to Act Blue and the ACLU.
But that's fine, 'cause Obama told me it was OK if his vote was a deal-breaker.
We'll see when the numbers come out. Remember that we heard this story earlier in the primaries right before big numbers, so there's no value in media speculation.
You'll notice that the article has no evidence whatsoever that fundraising was slow in June, just Obama supporters noting that there's a lot of money to be raised and that raising money for Clinton is hard. In fact, the shorter version of the article and other articles on the internet yesterday misused an Obama quote which was about fundraising for Clinton, which I notice has disappeared.
Me too. And I had such high hopes. Prefer to give to real liberals.
My initial plan was to continue my $100/month through the campaign. FISA changed that. He gets none of my money now. That goes to Act Blue and the ACLU.
But that's fine, 'cause Obama told me it was OK if his vote was a deal-breaker.
I think Matt's June post might be valid. Everyone thinks Obama has a lock on it, which is why people might rather spend their money on gas than give it to a progressive candidate.
Iran's launching missiles and doing poor quality photoshop jobs to help McCain, but it will be to no avail.
I just contributed to the EFF to continue this fight and I'm forwarding the letter to Obama and the DNC to let them know that this is a contribution that they didn't get.
Ah yes, FISA, an abstraction that will, in practice, effect how many people in their daily lives? Support of faith-based charities? How are he, it's the separation of church and state, man!
Meanwhile, say good-bye to to things that effect people's everyday lives, like health care, say hello to more war and, oh, I don't know, say so long to Roe and Griswald, just to start.
"Principles", and "integrity" in politics is the refuge for back-benchers and losers, like, um, most Democrats.
Obama must find a way to bring Hillary's supporters into the fold. He's running a campaign with half of the party. It's just not sustainable.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
I just contributed to the EFF to continue this fight and I'm forwarding the letter to Obama and the DNC to let them know that this is a contribution that they didn't get.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Sadly, this seems to be all the netroots (or maybe it IS nutroots after all) are capable of these days. If Obama doesn't pass their purity test, they throw a tantrum, take their ball and go home.
Ironically, these are the same people that have been fuming for years about the ideological purity of Republicans, and now they expect - no, DEMAND - the same of Democrats.
Obama swings to the right and campaign contributions from earnest, thoughtful Americans who *craved* progressive change have diminished????
Nobody could have predicted...
(Well actually, I did.)
People are thinking to themselves, why not save that money and by a G3 iPhone or give it to progressive Senate candidate?
And I'm thinking to myself, why not give money to a progressive Senate candidate who won't listen in on my iPhone?
Stop being childish and look at the long view.
Sadly, this seems to be all the netroots (or maybe it IS nutroots after all) are capable of these days. If Obama doesn't pass their purity test, they throw a tantrum, take their ball and go home.
Ironically, these are the same people that have been fuming for years about the ideological purity of Republicans, and now they expect - no, DEMAND - the same of Democrats.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Shine -- but it's OK if Obama doesn't win because the Constitutional Champions will have been Right. And as we know, the only thing that matters is FISA. That's it.
And anyway, Obama doesn't need their money. Kos told us so.
If Obama's fundraising is lagging, it's not FISA or anything like that. If the hyper-engaged netroots were the key to Obama's internet fundraising, then it would have been Edwards or Dodd who was raking in all that cash, since, pre-Iowa, they were the darlings of that set. More likely, the problem is that the rhythm of the general election campaign is not that conducive to inspiring waves of semi-spontaneous donations. During the primaries, he was always either beating Hilary or losing to Hilary, both events that were likely to get people to open their wallets. Now, he is just kind of doing what he is doing -- making appearances and holding a steady, if underwhelming, lead.
It is possible that things like the European trip and the convention could change that pattern. I don't know. But, right now, that campaign is no fun at all -- he is ahead enough that he is getting all the press scrutiny, but not so ahead that it really feels like he is winning.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better!
Progressives, independents, liberals and any fans of freedom quit or reduce giving to a candidate that enthusiastically supports the gutting and effective repeal of the 4th Amendment. No way to predict that reaction............
There are plenty of Senatorial candidates out there with more progressive principles and much more competitive races. If one is donating on a budget, it simply makes more sense to give to them.
Reward good behavior: the simplest rule for giving to any charity.
cnnr, if McCain wins, surely another 4 years of Bush policies will be excellent for "the long view."
Sorry, as a consumer I demand a specific product, I will not waste my money on something I dont want. My wife and I have directed our money to more progressive candidates. We still give but want to spend our money on things we care about.
Obama obviously is one of the worst two-faced-monsters. Guy barely gets the nomination and cant backtrack on campaign promises fast enough. What else will he find convenient to backtrack on in the future? It appears he is not willing to stand in there and "change" Washington, in fact, he seems quite happy to go right along with it all.
I don't want purity, I just want allegiance to the Constitution.
"And I'm thinking to myself, why not give money to a progressive Senate candidate who won't listen in on my iPhone?"
Yeah, because John McCain would be so much more circumspect while he's invading your privacy and listening to your phone calls. And thinking of new wayst to kill brown people.
I don't want purity, I just want allegiance to the Constitution.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
I think my checkbook eloped with the Senator's promises.
Any claim that the drop in contributions is tied to his "move to the center" is pretty far-fetched. Is there any evidence whatsoever that FISA has played a significant role in his fundraising. The far simpler and more plausible explanation is that the primaries ended and the vast majority of americans and democrats aren't focused on the race right now.
Obama has my vote, but after FISA he will not get a nickel from me.
Count me among the Obama donors who've instituted a donation pause until he stops tacking right and trashing the Constiution. He's got my vote, but my wallet stays closed until I see some changes.
The Firedog Lake/Color for Change coalition got the June/July donation that I would have made to Obama 08. That's what caving on FISA did to my desire to donate to the campaign.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better! I'm giving to the ACLU, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold - they represent me.
Yeah, because watching a constitutional scholar break his promise and gut the fourth amendment and blowing off the rule of law by voting for immunity isn't that big of a deal is it? A lot of people will still vote for him as will I but don't expect us to follow blindly and not to express our disagreement with Obama. We've had seven years of Republicans doing just that for Bush. I think our country deserves better! I'm giving to the ACLU, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold - they represent me.
You're right on, Matt.
I just gave $100 to the ACLU and faxed the receipt to Obama. The cover note made it clear that I was planning to give to his campaign, but the ACLU got the cash instead due entirely to his FISA vote and the ACLU's suit in opposition to the FISA update.
Any claim that the drop in contributions is tied to his "move to the center" is pretty far-fetched. Is there any evidence whatsoever that FISA has played a significant role in his fundraising. The far simpler and more plausible explanation is that the primaries ended and the vast majority of americans and democrats aren't focused on the race right now.
after obama's astonishingly horrible judgement on the FISA bill, I refuse to give any time or money to his campaign. i'm going to still vote for him. but yeah, my time and money should be dedicated to building a veto proof majority.
I continue to kick in $20 a month until I get to $199 and then I'm done. I don't want to show up on FEC reports that are all over the internets. FISA sucked but it was over when the Harry Reid made the Intelligence Committee bill the controlling bill instead of the Judiciary bill. Obama still kicks ass. The guy is going to fix more constitutional issues in one day as the Executive then tilting at windmills in the cesspool that is the U.S. Senate. Even a great FISA bill was never going to do squat. Bush is going to be a shredding, pardoning fiend from November '08 to January '09 - good FISA bill or bad.
My message to liberals who can afford it: Give Obama money or you suck.
$200 to Obama today, just to make up for all you Enemies Of The Good.
you can thank me when he wins.
There's a small (but over-represented) group of liberal whiners who want Obama to lose, because then they can say "See, if he'd listened to our lily-white purity, it would have been alright". Of course, they would rather see a Republican win, since this gives them something to whine about for another four years. If a Democrat wins, then suddenly they have to face the possibility of living in the real world. Can you imagine the rush to the therapists?
These are the people who say: no money because one of my self-righteous ideals was compromised. Well, you can behave like whores for McCain if you want to, but real Democrats will work and give and do what they can to make things better. So shut your self-righteous mouths about your empty principles. You aren't Democrats - just attention whores like Markos. He needs Republicans in power to get readers - and you sheeple follow his worthless ass.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Nice to see all the dumb fucks have convened in this thread.
The whole martyr act is getting old--"I am patriot! I stand with constitooshun!" crowd is almost guaranteeing a McCain win. Because that guy will really protect the constitution.
Ah, I see the concern trolls are out in full force today. Could it be that the donations went down as the primary was winding down and the general hadn't taken off yet. Neah, it's everything to do with FISA, right....
Let's see those June numbers.
In the early days of the Clinton/Obama debates, I worried that all the new people attracted to politics through Obama's vitality would wear away when they realized that he wasn't and couldn't be pure. I didn't expect it from the more experienced political hands.
That being said, I am disappointed in Obama's FISA vote in the Senate, and will not give as willingly of my time (of which I have little) or my money (of which I have less). Given the numbers by which cloture was passed, I think he could have spoken strongly against FISA, voted against cloture, and started running ads in red states setting up the telecom companies as the bad guys. Who doesn't like paying their phone bills?
But hey, I don't get paid to think as strategically as his people presumably do.
Obama could not filibuster the FISA bill because his colleagues did not muster the votes to sustain a filibuster. You can't blame him for the defection of the Blue Dogs, and it's simply dishonest to do so. I don't remember Feingold or Dodd filibustering either - so why should Obama take the blame?
Please, grow up, and recognize that even if Obama ain't perfect - and you ain't either - he's way better than any candidate we have seen in 40 years. Don't throw that away and elect John "Village Idiot" McCain. Do you really want another four years of Bushie World?
Nothing new here. The so-called 'progressives' around here hate winning more than anything else because then their viewpoint is in the position of responsibility and they can't keep playing the constant victim quite so well. They want nothing more than the same thing they've railed against for the past eight years -- another eight year round of Republican dominance and control.
They're all too happy to take up the same chorus Ralph Nader was chanting madly in 2000.
Sorry, punishing Obama for his FISA vote is not an insistence on ideological purity. That vote was wrong and Obama should hear that message loud and clear. You can't let everything slide even during a campaign.
The FISA vote will not bring him any centrist/conservative votes because it's not that high-visibility an issue for average voters, who are apparently focused on Iraq and the economy. I find it fairly improbable that his vote was the result of political triangulation. I think Obama might like to retain that power for himself as President, and may even have been influenced by telecom lobbyist bucks. He may have been swayed by bogus (IMHO) national security arguments or back-room horse trading.
But if Obama wants to be perceived as a 'new kind of candidate', this is not the way to accomplish it.
We need to make Obama aware of the flavor of his mandate, if he actually winds up receiving one.
Such violent aggression towards those who have funnelled their donations from Obama towards more progressive candidates and groups. I also note a bit of the Phil Gramm approach: you're all a bunch of whiners.
You folks are persuasive.
Wow. I wish I had a hundred dollars to throw him, although I am one of those dumb fuck purists who would probably give it to Regina Thomas or the ACLU first. Could the economy be part of the problem?
Like other commenters here, I too will vote for him (or against McCain) but no money. For me the real killer is his dishonest "Everything is ok with this bill except for the immunity part." He is not stupid. I am confident that he knows that this erodes our Constitutional protections. Does he think WE are stupid?
Or, maybe he is. What are the chances that the new FISA law will be used to monitor communications between potential "people of interest" transacting with the Obama campaign?
To those telling us hysterical liberals to take the long view I say: "Harry Reid" and "Nancy Pelosi." Isn't it SO MUCH better now the Democrats have Congress and the Sentate? What exactly have they done differently? Under their leadership they have established the precident that Republicans don't have to testify before congress if they choose not to. Oh yeah and continued funding for the war they promised to end.
I'll end with a cute riddle:
Q: What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.
A: The Republican fights for his constituents.
Obama clearly wasn't happy with the FISA bill, but supported it regardless because preventing the Administration's continuing flagrant violation of the Constitution was more important than punishing companies for being misguided patriots a few years back, rather like the Senate passing the War Powers Act. The telecoms clearly got the message that participating in warrantless wiretapping will not be tolerated, and penalizing them further would have been a feather in the cap but not much more.
Frankly, Obama's been a long time coming in coming to grips with the demands of practical politics. We don't have unlimited choices for President, and even with a Democratic majority he'll need to reach out to Republicans now and then.
On a side note, the "my way or the highway" attitude suggests to me many hardcore liberals aren't open to examining counter arguments from other interested parties, and this does not create good policy. The refusal to go for a guy who isn't seen as ideologically pure reminds me of Stevensonian Democrats withholding support from JFK.
As with a number of others above, I am not going out to spend on an electronic toy. I returned the Obama campaign's last fund appeal with a simple "no" and and explanation that I would spend my limited funds on candidates who were committed to upholding the constitution. At present, candidate Obama is about as likely to get money from me as Steny Hoyer. I closed by wishing him well with his new friends and hoped that they would be contributing in my place.
I wonder if it's the same short attention span problem led the various "I stopped donating to Obama" posters to: 1. withdraw support based on the pseudo-scandal of the day and 2. keep hitting the "post" button because their urgent message didn't immediately appear in the comments?
Hmm, defenders of the constitution who don't care about winning back the White House, even though winning the white house is the most likely way to change the policies they hate. That's really fucking productive. It's like they want to spend the next four years going, "WAAAAAH, John McCain wants to spy on me."
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue.
So, those disappointed with Obama are overly emphasizing the value of remaining "pure" to the Constitution? What other Amendments can we give a little on, allowing those on the Right to advocate dilution or ignoring? That is, and still not be guilty of whining about it as it happens? How about just a little bit of slavery? Maybe just a few women here and there denied suffrage? Maybe a few local sheriff departments and prisons meting out cruel and unusual punishment and we all turn a blind eye? Oh, and don't forget some poll taxes, those would be nice here and there. There are probably constituencies to be mined, votes to be had pushing for such ideas. Let's give Obama the leeway to expand his base and not cry about it if he suggests such ideas. Quitcherbitchin, even with all the above give backs Obama would still be better than McCain, right?
Some people have principles and some people don't. Obama sold us out on a matter of core principle so fuck all you Obamatrons who can't understand why we haven't joined your cult. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Its an incredibly stupid move on Obama's part anyway. We all know he's afraid to fight, but he's going to end up having to go on offense at some point whether he wants to or not. Too bad he's squandering all of his offensive opportunities to make a move to the "center" that will only hurt him not help him.
Amazing. It's like the rabid Obama supporter simply is incapable of reading comprehension. As a supporter myself (tho not a rabid one) this worries me greatly.
There is nothing wrong with withholding your cash if you disagree with the candidate. It seems most who are doing so are still going to vote for Obama in the general election. What he did was stupid. I love the guy and even I can see that. It is a clear flip flop.
You people need to calm down. Obama is not in any danger of going broke and people are still going to vote for him. Don't you think one of the guy's strength is people can disagree with him and still vote for him???
I don't want to be a mindless Obamabot. I have seen enough of those surrounding G. W.
Also, please note that my criticism shouldn't be taken as applying to our host here, who's given 500$ (including 250$ in May). Thanks, Matt.
Stop being childish and look at the long view
The long view is now.
And, I don't know about you, but I'm just fine, thank you.
today i opened up my wallet and joined the ACLU. a much better use of my money, i think. why would i give to a candidate who wants to take my freedoms away? isn't that what the terra-raqis are trying to do?
I doubt any decrease in fundraising is primarily due to activist discontent. But the general disillusionment with Obama is nevertheless one of the most encouraging developments of this election cycle. Insofar as the netroots demonstrate independence from the party, and particularly such a popular standard bearer as Obama, they demonstrate their potential as a truly effective outside pressure group. Now the key is whether they can motivate this kind of activist anger on issues beyond the important, but somewhat arcane FISA capitulation, to issues such as as bankruptcy and prison reform.
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue. As usual, the establishment trolls cannot even begin to discuss the progressives' complaints on their merits.
Amazing. It's like the rabid Obama supporter simply is incapable of reading comprehension. As a supporter myself (tho not a rabid one) this worries me greatly.
There is nothing wrong with withholding your cash if you disagree with the candidate. It seems most who are doing so are still going to vote for Obama in the general election. What he did was stupid. I love the guy and even I can see that. It is a clear flip flop.
You people need to calm down. Obama is not in any danger of going broke and people are still going to vote for him. Don't you think one of the guy's strength is people can disagree with him and still vote for him???
I don't want to be a mindless Obamabot. I have seen enough of those surrounding G. W.
Regardless of how heated the debate may be, most of those supporters will come back to the fold as the campaign moves on.
However, letting your candidate know you are displeased with him by closing the checkbook for a few weeks is a time honored means of political communication. Rest assured the NRA and relgious right are reminding the Republicans of this every time they even THINK about doing something "centrist."
Note, by the way, that being wary of government spying and corporate collusion with corrupt government officials IS a centrist position. How many Americans think the government reading their mail is a good thing?
Progressives have as much right as conservatives to be angry when a politician crosses them on an important issue. As usual, the establishment trolls cannot even begin to discuss the progressives' complaints on their merits.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
It may be childish, but I've had the same thought -- that I would not contribute any more money to Obama until A) he throws me (and my fellow lefty-liberals) a bone or two or B) it looks as if the race is getting uncomfortably close.
I understand the pragmatic political running-to-the-center strategy -- minimizing your perceived vulnerabilities -- because you have to win the election first. But damn, it sure dampens my enthusiasm/hope.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
"The long view is now"? Well, whatever that means, I'd suggest your horizon would be benefited by performing an anal extraction on your puzzled head.
I notice the "fundraising trouble" mentioned in the article is not FISA or a "centrist turn" or Obama's small lead or the lull in the schedule--it's big-dollar Clinton supporters expecting big-dollar Obama supporters to pay off Clinton's debt.
Of course, repaying the multimillionaire Clinton for the money she loaned herself to run a highly negative campaign long after she had no chance of winning the nomination should take precedence over getting a Democrat elected president.
I suspect the Post article is mostly just gossip and Village wish-fulfillment for a tight race--there don't seem to be any current hard numbers, and the "three straight months of declining donations" line is more than a month out of date--but it certainly shows where Clinton's priorities lie. Thank god Obama got the nomination. Too bad she's still bleeding him for it.
According to a person on dkos, a statement from Team Obama:
Spokesman Dan Pfeiffer:
"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."
Ok, progressives - just how do you expect Obama to fix FISA, given the lack of solid support in the Senate and the way politics works? You want your ideas to be taken seriously - let's hear what can be done in real life. What concrete measures would you take here and now?
you can thank me when he wins.
Me too! I'm upping my contributions to compensate for the crybabies. Good riddance assholes.
$200 to Obama today, just to make up for all you Enemies Of The Good.
you can thank me when he wins.
Me too! I'm upping my contributions to compensate for the crybabies. Good riddance assholes.
Please! It's the middle of the summer!
People with lives have better things to do and think about than the Presidential election. The lull has very little to do with the Obama's "lurch to the center" -- if he had toed the liberal line on the Supreme Court decisions and with FISA, he'd have no more money in his war chest.
If/when it looks like McCain has a real chance of winning the election, you'll see a lot of Democrats opening up their wallets.
Yes, you're right, fellow commenters, no matter what Obama does or says we should all give him money anyway. That way he can rest secure knowing that he can always count on our dollars while ignoring our beliefs. That's an excellent message to send to any candidate.
Look, it's fine to say that you, personally, don't consider FISA to be a big deal, but some of you seem to be suggesting that because McSame is a big loon we should forgive Obama any transgression, no matter how offensive we might find it. Does Obama really need an army of sycophantic ATMs to win this election?
You piss on your base, they stop opening their wallets for you. Obama is supposed to be a smart guy, how come he didn't see that coming?
And we'd see a lot less of the duplicate comments if the comment posting system actually worked properly, rather than tossing up server errors while at the same time posting the comment. Is this ever going to be fixed?
Thank you Dominion, well said.
I always hold my nose and pull the lever for the Dem candidate for Pres. But I'm tired of the choice being how fast do we race to the bottom.
So far, with Obama's inability to get out in front of an issue, take the lead, and show people the way. I don't see how he will be able to get anything that is even half-way decent accomplished during his term.
Obama clearly wasn't happy with the FISA bill, but supported it regardless because preventing the Administration's continuing flagrant violation of the Constitution was more important than punishing companies for being misguided patriots a few years back, rather like the Senate passing the War Powers Act. The telecoms clearly got the message that participating in warrantless wiretapping will not be tolerated, and penalizing them further would have been a feather in the cap but not much more.
Frankly, Obama's been a long time coming in coming to grips with the demands of practical politics. We don't have unlimited choices for President, and even with a Democratic majority he'll need to reach out to Republicans now and then.
On a side note, the "my way or the highway" attitude suggests to me many hardcore liberals aren't open to examining counter arguments from other interested parties, and this does not create good policy. The refusal to go for a guy who isn't seen as ideologically pure reminds me of Stevensonian Democrats withholding support from JFK.
"but some of you seem to be suggesting that because McSame is a big loon we should forgive Obama any transgression,"
Well, do you want a democrat in the office or another, possibly even loonier, Bush term? Presidential elections nearly always come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I love all the people who think that we not only have an obligation to vote for Obama despite our disappointments (which we do, and no one has said they're not voting for him)—we have an obligation to give money to someone we're profoundly disappointed with. Rather than cussing out ACLU donors, why don't you stop going to restaurants, maybe sell off some possessions, so you can fulfill your sacred obligation to the utmost.
Obama's recent behavior is extremely discouraging to those of us who would donate to him.
His failure to lead on stopping the FISA bill is a disgrace. His vote for the FISA bill is a disgrace.
My money will be going to congressional candidates who believe in the Constitution, like Dan Seals and Darcy Burner.
If Obama wants to protect the telecoms instead of the Constitution, let them fund his campaign.
Tomemos, rather than making uninformed judgments, maybe you should do some real work, rather than sitting on your ass reading second-rate novels?
Eh, he hasn't offered us any new t-shirts lately.
How about the "Vote for Obama even though he voted for FISA" t-shirt? ;^)
This all seems quite encouraging to me. I made a donation recently because I was happy that he came out against the attempt to amend California's constitution. Otherwise I wouldn't have due to the moves to the center.
I think it would be silly and short sighted to not vote for Obama because of this sort of thing, but not giving him money is a measured response and one that encourages good behavior.
I was going to make a cash contribution to a politician (obama) for the first time ever. Ive volunteered time in the past but no money. But then Obama sold out on FISA and to the worst president ever so I'll be sending the money to the ACLU instead. He can make up the difference from AT&T, who by the way is who you are paying tons of $$$ to with your stupid iphones.
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
if progressive issues are important to people why wouldn't they give their money to competitive races in the house/senate or issue groups?
i've got 50 bucks to spend a month, i'm giving to the person or group that's agitating for change. i have no doubt that everyone's life is better off w/ an obama presidency. and in the voting booth i'll be excited to vote obama. but i want the national conversation on progressive issues, principles, and policies to change. sorry but more republican-lite rhetoric on important progressive issues isn't not going to earn my money. he doesn't need to pass a purity test, he needs to go on the record as trying to reframe the issues. turning the other cheek on the significance of the 4th amend, being cool w/ restricting a women's reproductive autonomy, and calling a decision that restricts capital punishment unconstitutional is not a bold move to shift the conversation on how we think and talk about progressive ideals. he can roll over for right wing talking points w/ someone else's money.
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
This crap is just ridiculous. I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I never fully realized what a bunch of whiners we have. You guys would have loved Stevenson - that guy knew how to lose with class. Never compromised a thing - just took it up the butt from Ike. And he did it twice!
Don't you geniuses think that having a Democrat in the White House might be better for your Constitutional Rights? Nah, better to put your faith in St. John. How crazy is is that Obama didn't go for the three man filibuster. That was a sure-fire loser. Stevenson was a Senator from Illinois, too. Why didn't Obama study his strategy more? Could have made this election much more fun. Damn!
Pardon the multiple posts. My Mozilla Browser froze whenever I hit the 'Post' button.
When will geniuses like Tim figure out that the only thing that will bring about progressive change- regardless of who's President- is having more and better Democrats in Congress? That's the place to invest your money.
Matt,
Love your blog, but I've got a nit to pick.
"People are thinking to themselves. . . ."
Really?
Seems Broderish, not in the bland conventional wisdom sense but in the willingness to generalize about what's in the heads of hundreds of thousands of people who, for the most part, really don't think like you (or me) at all.
Posted by Ryan S | July 11, 2008 10:32 AM