NEWS: Barack Obama is the New Hotness

POLITICS: Barack Obama is the New Hotness

Or so say the first quarter fundraising reports, at least. Not only did he report over 66% more individual donors than Senator Hillary Clinton, he actually managed to convince a fair number of ex-Clinton loyalists to drop some coin in his bucket instead of hers.

Oh snap! Those two-timing S.O.B’s!

The numbers detailing Obama’s surprising showing don’t end there.

So, to sum up: Senator Obama had 40,000 more donors donating almost $6 million more than Senator Clinton for the first quarter of 2007 in fundraising for next year’s presidential Primary. He also out-earned her $6.9 million to $4.2 million in internet donations. That’s a pretty thorough butt-kicking… sort of.

The caveat to all of those numbers is that Clinton still has by far the biggest war chest with over $30 million in available funds. Obama is second with $19 million (Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are distant runners-up with around $11 million each. Actually outside of Romney’s impressive $20 million haul, the Republicans got their asses handed to them, but that’s another story.) It is conceivable that some of Clinton’s former donors decided to give to Obama because they felt she didn’t need the money and Obama did. I suppose some might have considered it a way to even the playing field.

As a Democratic voter myself, I am both surprised at the fundraising strength of Senator Obama and a bit wary of the bitter political battle that could erupt between he and Senator Clinton. If the Republicans get their shit together and stand united behind a candidate, the big money GOP donors will follow. Especially if a tussle at the Democratic top leaves blood in the water for the sharks to smell.

The question then, is whether this dual-barreled Democratic fundraising monster is actually good for the Democratic party. If you’re just looking at pure numbers, Clinton and Obama seem like the strongest candidates (yes, I’m aware that McCain and Giuliani tend to beat Clinton and Obama in head-to-head polls, but such polls this far out are notoriously unreliable not to mention that the gap between them is shrinking rapidly,) but if the Big Blue Two are forced to unleash their arsenal on each other, will the damage be too much to overcome in the general election for whoever is left standing? Moreover, for all their differences a McCain-Giuliani superticket is not entirely out of the question. Can we say the same for a Clinton-Obama slate? I don’t know, but for some reason it feels less likely.

Of course, we’re a long way off. But if fundraising numbers are any indication (and they usually are), Barack Obama is going to be in the thick of this thing for quite a while. Full records of all the candidates’ financial statements can be found here.

My concern is that either one of them wins the primary and loses to any Republican who is a white male. I realize we are progressing as a nation, but with the past few elections being so close an issue such as a non-white or female candidate may be enough to tip the scales towards the right wing again...

My geuss is CLinton did not expect such a callenge and is starting to shit her pants. She has never really been challenged politically before and I dont know how she will hold up, it should be interesting. The key is does Obama have mre than just being Obama to throw at her.

What scares me about Barack Obama is not his name, or his skin color, or even his surreal idealism, but the fact that he is a first term senator. That scares the hell out of me. We need a leader with experience, especially in this era.

Heck yea, someone like George W. Bush I'm thnkin'

Well, we all know Hillary has sold every out already, but will Barack do so once and if he is elected? Yes.

zealot alert: Barack Obama is the golden one and the next president of the United states of America.

but really, you can sell out worst if you decide to take Political Action Committee money. THIS is money from NOW and NARAL and the NRA etc. ALL of the current republican and democratic candidates are taking PAC money except one:

Barack Obama. That is right, he was one of the first to call for change iwth the jack abrahamaoff (sp?) scandal, and he is taking none of it.

He is younger than many, but he is patient, brilliant, speaks 4 or 5 languages, and is ready to work in a non-paritisan way across every fence to get things done domestically adn internationally. i swear he can sit with muslim nations and get some resolve.

I also hope he and HIL do not engage in mud slinging. democrats can and will win this thing. and is that AL Gore we see out there peaking around?

Because being a senator is the same as being president.

President is the kind of job that you can' t really prepare for. You don't know what the job really entails until you ARE the president and by then its far too late to back out.

We NEED a leader who is willing to think about something other than himself and maintaining his style of life. Fuck experience. Any current candidate (minus Hillary) is better than what we have now.

Cop-out. You can prepare for the job of President, you just can't prepare completely. That's like saying, well we shouldn't expect the President to be able to read since you can't really prepare for the job anyway. So fuck it.

I'm not saying Obama is or is not "prepared" or "qualified" I'm just saying.

I am not discussing preparation for being president, I am citing his complete lack of political experience. I would not be comfortable having someone who is a first term senator, someone who just got on capital hill, as my president.

+1

i don't want a first year DVM operating on my dog.
i don't want a lawyer fresh out of law school trying my case.
i don't want a president who has little political experience regardless how intelligent or mature or "together" he seems.

He also had nearly a decade of state senatorial experience before getting to Washington. This isn't his first gig. And I don't know why his being a seasoned senator would put anyone at ease. In fact, it seems to do the opposite, as senators have been notoriously inept at winning elections the last several decades, often losing to people with no Capitol Hill experience.

One thing you haven't mentioned about Hillary and Obama and their warring war chests: Most of Clinton's regular donors have already given their maximum allowable contribution to her campaign. Obama not only has a much larger field of new donors, but many have only given a fraction of what they could, meaning he could keep going back to them several times before they are maxed. Unless Clinton can get some new blood supporting her, this could give Obama a significant advantage over the months preceding the primary and again for the general election.

I can't remember where I read this otherwise I would provide the link. Sorry.

It's implicit in the numbers in the original post, I think; more donors giving less apiece to Obama.

Eh, I'd vote for him. I don't think the whole lack of political experience thing is too big an issue actually. I mean as long he's got a good head on his shoulders and his heart's in the right place, I think he could make a decent president.
What I think is really important is:

1) That he has a strong, and educated mind and a wealth of knowlege in history, world events, and politicss.

2) He surrounds himself with the right people. People who have the experience he may lack.

If he just has those things I think we'll be alright.

ok - you just said that lack of political expierience isn't a big deal, but then listed having a wealth of knowledge in politics as something that is a big deal. most of the time, wealths of knowledge in a certain field come hand in hand with years and years of experience in it.

Who, in your opinion, was the last successful U.S. President?

So, once again,an election is decided by who has access to the most money?

I agree. Political experience is not the only kind of knowledge you need to become president. I think Obama does actually have a decent amount of political experience, but importantly he also seems to have skills of insight and diplomacy that are incredibly relevant to his (hopefully future) job.

Although, I have to ask (and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic), but what's wrong with Hillary? She wouldn't be my first choice for president, but I don't know why some people are so opposed to her. She's always seemed quite inoffensive to me.

From what I have seen from politicians, having a lot of political experience doesn't mean shit when it comes to how good you are at your job. I would much rather have someone like Obama who actually seems to care about the country and not solely about his political career.

I'm a map nut, and that final link to that "where the donations" map came from is *really* interesting. It's actually a great research puzzle: how does early fundraising distribution predict future success in primaries/the general election? Romney's map is especially interesting, and makes him look like a really strong contender: he's getting a lot of money from a much more even distribution across the country than any of the Republicans, and is as good as/maybe better than Clinton or Obama in that regard. If money is any kind of proxy for organization/supporters in a given region, then he looks like a pretty entrenched, tough candidate.

Exactly what I was wondering.

exactly. A one term state governor is obviously much more experienced than a Senator.



right.

Especially since he was put in charge of oil fields, ALL by himself.... such a BIG boy he is