I’ve been slammin’ busy at work the past couple days, hence my lack of posts. However, I did get this in an email yesterday and wanted to quickly share it:
“News broke yesterday that a few wealthy Clinton supporters are gearing up for a massive spending campaign to boost her chances in the big upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.
The so-called “American Leadership Project” will take unlimited contributions from individuals and is organized the same way as the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
ABC News reports that this group is seeking 100 Clinton supporters to each give $100,000 to fund its $10 million effort to promote Senator Clinton and “contrast” her positions with Barack Obama’s.
That’s the opposite of how politics should work, and the opposite of how Barack Obama has run this campaign.
The same day this group’s activity was revealed, we announced that nearly 1 million individual people have donated to this campaign.
Stand up against politics-as-usual. Be one of the million supporters who are calling out for change.
If you give as part of our matching program, your gift will be doubled by a previous donor. You can even choose to exchange a note with them about why you are part of this movement.”
His campaign, as of yesterday’s email, had 961,227 people who donated. That is freaking incredible.
***
Update 2/25/08
The number of unique contributors is up to 980,611 as of 2P. His campaign will easily surpass 1,000,000 by the end of the month.
***
Update 2/26/08
Yup – Obama is going to easily hit 1,000,000 donors this month. He’s at 990,688 as of three hours ago (~2P MST). That likely means he’s already hit the 1,000,000 mark. Unbelievable.
February 22, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Please explain “change”.
February 22, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Change?
February 23, 2008 at 6:02 am
yes. you said: “Stand up against politics-as-usual. Be one of the million supporters who are calling out for change.”
so I am asking how Obama is not politics as usual.
What will he change?
February 23, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Ah. Sorry – that was a part of his email and I didn’t remember seeing it when you asked your question originally.
I think one of the things Obama will change is who gets represented in the White House. Currently, major corporations and the wealthy are the benefactors of Bush’s policies. Remember his Pioneers and Rangers program that helped get him elected?
Hillary Clinton is asking 100 people to donate $100,000 to fund a 527 group. This strikes me as no change from the current administration. If Clinton felt that non-wealthy citizens were not being represented well, why not engage with them? I certainly can’t make a $100,000 donation. So how is she demonstrating that she will fight for my interests if she’s elected? I don’t think she is.
I don’t see Obama asking for 100 people to donate to his campaign. He understands people-powered politics. He might not represent my interests perfectly, but I think he’ll fight for them a lot harder than Hillary. That’s one example of something he’ll change.
Pingback: Random Stories 2/24/08 « Weatherdem’s Weblog
February 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Yes it’s true. Clinton has many wealthy and powerful people in her circle.
But so does Obama. Why has Obama done so well? I don’t think it’s because of grassroots support. The more correct answer can be found in who is backing him politically. All his foreign policy and economic policy advisors are from the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
All you see on tv and in many articles/blogs is focused on Obama and all the people coming to his speeches. There is no focus on what his policies are and who is advising him.
He will speak about what’s wrong and what he wants to do. But all politicians do that.
There is no change with Obama. Foreign policy will remain essentially the same.
Economic policy will only as much as it always does. One day its a democrat. the next it is a republican. But there will be no fundamental changes.
A fundamental change is what we need now. The economic burden on this nation is being pressed to the limits because of decades of bad policy. This goes beyond the Bush administration. It goes beyond ‘party.’
9 trillion dollars in debt. 55 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next few decades.
How will we pay for it? Obama is going to increase spending. Actually all candidates are going to increase spending. This is why we have such problems economically. Our nation is spending money it doesn’t have and we owe people around the world.
Ron Paul is the only one who would reduce spending. He is also the only one to address the role that the federal reserve plays. Who else even comes close?
If you want to talk about special interest, look at the banks. If you want to talk about special interest look at the military industrial complex.
Only Ron Paul has addressed these issues.
February 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Ron Paul would absolutely reduce spending. He would have to as he would also reduce the revenue stream. No income = no spending. See, it’s easy!
But then what happens when your municipal sewer system breaks down? How about the roads? How about the police or the military? What about programs like Social Security and Medicare? No public money for these services means privatization of all of them. I am not interested in paying a corporation what they consider ‘fair market price’ to keep my water supply clean and my streets safe.
There are reasons Ron Paul has garnered single-digit support from a group that is largely disinterested in voting this year. He would be an absolute disaster.
February 28, 2008 at 12:58 am
You mean the infrastructure that is past due to be maintained?
The social security that has been squandered?
Medicare that far trupms social security in cost?
I would rather trust a business that goes broke when they don’t run their business well than a government that pretends it does good things for its citizens and than fails in every way.
The government is an institution. Government as we know it now is a corporation in essence.
Do you not realize that we do not have a free market, nor have we had a free market for decades?
This whole century has been defined by bigger government and disastrous wars. Do you really think that making government bigger and more powerful is going to solve the problems we face right now?
February 28, 2008 at 1:04 am
Oh yeah. The federal reserve is a semi private organization too. Do you have any idea how much it claims in assets? Try billions upon billions. Probably a trillion by now.
Now you see why they won’t touch Ron Paul? Instead they just try to ignore him.
I guess you must think that the government is a separate entity from the people.
That somehow it possesses powers that we as citizens don’t have.
I got news for you. The government is made up of ordinary people, like you and me. They are confined to what they read, hear, and see and are prone to mitakes.
The problem n this country is not about who is in control. It is about bureaucracy, unchecked power, and policies that consistently fail and/or swindle the people out of their money and savings.
Anyway, you won’t listen to me. Why should you. Only you can find out for yourself.
Hope you find what you’re looking for!
February 28, 2008 at 1:36 am
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Who gives Barack Obama money anyway?
Who gives Ron Paul money?
February 28, 2008 at 6:23 am
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on why Obama has been so successful. I do think it’s because of grassroots support. Hillary has raised more corporate funds than Barack has. What’s the difference? Their approach to generating voters come election time. Barack has consistently developed staff and grassroots volunteer support in every state so far. Has Ron Paul? He has oodles of donations made online. How has he chosen to spend it?
Again, there’s a reason why he has performed so poorly. Instead of pointing fingers, maybe the fault lies in his own policy proposals and strategic decisions. Would it make sense for him to help other like-minded people elected? Maybe work to develop some additional infrastructure to aid his cause, if it is indeed long-term.
February 28, 2008 at 3:15 pm
i have talked to hundreds of people, and many have said they would vote for Paul but said he wouldn’t get the nomination. and many are voting democratic because of bush, and the poor choices of republicans. some people vote party, but many just vote for the lesser of evils. Paul is doing better than anyone realized and I really think that if those who voted democrat had backed Paul in the caucus/primary, he would have much more of a fighting chance.
many people don’t even know who Paul is.
I place a lot of blame on the “corporate media.”
let me give you an example. yesterday bernanke was giving testimony about the state of the economy. Paul is a ranking member on the subcommittee that was hearing Bernanke. Every time I saw a broadcast on tv they gave a clip of Bernanke saying, “we expect the economy to stay sluggish in the near-term” etc. Not once did they give Paul a 2 second clip showing what Paul said or asked Bernanke. My contention is that if Obama, McCain or Clinton had been there questioning Bernanke they would have been on tv.
Just like when they mention who is running on the Republican side, they hardly ever mention Huckabee or Paul, Just because they “think” that they can’t win.
This attitude carries over to the populace that doesn’t pay much attention to the race but will vote for their party, or who seems like the most popular candidate.
“they” seem to decide for us who is electable and who is not.
if the “polls” were accurate, then wouldn’t giuliani had been the winner?
of course Paul killed Giuliani in the first debate when Paul proved Giuliani knew nothing about terrorism.
Of course, now that it seems that McCain is the frontrunner….there is a lot of people frustrated. Many arre convinced he is not a good choice for the Republican Party. (I know he can’t win, but I thnk Paul could beat Democrat.)
Ron Paul has raised tons of money with lots of small donations. There are thousands of people that go to rallies, why doesn’t he get on tv? Obama and Clinton and McCain do when they have rallies. 20 candidates, 5 left. And they can’t mention him on TV? We on’t know until Sept who the nominee is, yet the media basically calls McCain the man. They are misleading the public.
I place a lot of blame on the “corporate media.”
And I agree with you. His policies are not talked about much, so they are not mainstream. But his ideas aren’t that far out there. Low taxes? Cutting spending? No nation building? Obeying the consitution? Protecting individual rights? Strong national defense? Get rid of the IRS?
How are these not appealing or “mainstream”?
Point is, the media spends a lot of time talking about nothing when they could be having good debates on the issues. Instead they choose to just pass off Ron Paul as not electable and therefore not worth talking about. They have shot themselves in the foot. The censorship is very obvious this time around.
There are many people running as “Ron Paul Republicans”
So the ‘infrastructure’ to aid his cause is developing.
http://www.youtube.com/user/murraysabrin (may very well win in senate)
http://ronpaulpublic.com/home/
http://www.dailypaul.com/
February 28, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I’ll agree that the corporate media in this country leaves quite a bit to be desired. Too much infotainment and all that.
I’ll continue by saying that while I don’t share Ron Paul’s worldview, I’m encouraged by the fact that he has raised the kinds of money he has with the methodologies employed. I find it admirable in much the same fashion that I appreciate how Obama has raised a considerable amount from grassroots support. I recognize Obama has accepted monies that aren’t from the grassroots. For now, while I find it somewhat distasteful, I’m encouraged by his outreach to non-corporate entities for support.
The point being, I think Obama has utilized and developed non-establishment infrastructure. It sounds like Paul has tried to do something similar and I applaud him for that. You’re right: he’s not going to get recognized by the current establishment, political or media. If he can find a way to push his message through alternative infrastructure, good for him. I welcome his involvement in the process outside of what others are willing to “let him have”.
Among other things that require fixing or overhauling before 2012, I would say the media’s choice of who they cover needs to be near the top of the list. Let the unwashed masses decide who they want to support. Unfortunately, there is a high degree of homework that needs to be done, no matter who you support.