Welcome to the world of progressive politics, Sen. Casey. Maybe if you tweaked a position or two, you could get to play, too.
Obama’s ability to capitalize on a sustained wave of online support has enabled him to spend almost all of his time campaigning. Clinton has attended more than a dozen fundraisers since Jan. 1, and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, has appeared at more than 40, while Obama and his wife have attended fewer than 10 during that time.
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), an Obama supporter, said he was shocked when he learned Obama attended just one fundraiser in February. Casey, by contrast, attended 450 fundraisers during his 2006 Senate campaign. He said a typical day involved three hours of calling donors, followed by as many as three fundraising events per night. “It was pick-and-shovel work, just chipping away.”
Casey is amazed because Obama raised a record $55 million in February, and he only held one fundraiser. That’s what happens when people like you. To get organizations to like you, you have to suck up to them. To get wealthy donors to give the maximum, you need to schmooze them. But real people-powered politics gets beyond the need for that old style of fundraising.
Might help if he started to think of women as whole human beings.
NICE ONE!!!
yeah, that’s one of the two main tweaks he should think about.
Casey comprehension test.
It is important to stress the democratic nature of Obama’s fundraising. In the general election the Republicans will probably again try to push Obama’s commitment to federal funding. He will be able to argue he represents a new and better kind of campaign finance reform already.
that’s mistaken that Obama made a commitment to federal funding..said he’d sit down have a discussion with the GOP nominee. He wisely kept his options open.
and he’s already publicly funded anyhow.
and McCain has a wee problem with the FEC. Lucky for him it lacks a quorum.
according to this, st. john may be singing a different tune pretty quickly. the FEC problem is the least of his worries as the normally dependable RATpub moneymen are looking at the situation and hedging their bets:
well via Boston Globe (HT: The Daily Dish) McCain’s financing has become dicey:
The Daily Dish
” [This] would put him at a significant money disadvantage, but he may not have had a choice in the matter. After using the prospect of public matching funds to secure a private $4 million loan during the primary, it was unclear whether McCain had legally committed himself to public financing and the limits that go with it. Hilzoy’s posts on McCain’s situation, a few months ago, are here: McCain sells Birthright For Mess of Pottage and here.”##
(emphasis added)
Too bad McCain’s wife, Cindy can’t write him a check for $20 million…that would be pennies for her.
One proposal of Obama’s in order to accept public financing was to agree with the Republican opponent that contributions could not exceed $150 per contributor for the general election. Of course no Republican would ever accept this since they are dependent on high-dollar contributors and not average folks.
And you are absolutely right. Obama made NO commitment to public financing, but leaned toward it IF his competitor would agree that no outside groups could participate. But it would take some negotiations to get there. It WAS conditional. You don’t hear that often in the media. But now that McCain has exceeded the legal limits and should be jailed for his illegal fundraising after agreeing and then renigging on the McCain/Feingold public financing terms, no one seems to be talking about it much anymore. I guess for a good barbecue party with an open bar, the media will just look the other way. He’s such a nice, honest, straight-shooter “maveric” kinda guy, and all, Ya know.
I can tell ya, many party elders are shocked. SHOCKED. that Obama has raised over $134 million since January 2008. Far easier on the pocket of more main-streeters to give $25-100 per month.
And you can see his organizational skills at work…being laid out in one neat time-line..using the geometric model having individuals organize mini fundraisers.
Another indication of a well run campaign is the way it raises money. Once again, Obama demonstrates his superiority to his alleged more experienced opponent who is having trouble paying all her campaign bills. We are coming down the stretch in this long primary race and Obama continues to pour it on; oodles of tv ads, offices, staffers and all his efforts directed at campaigning, almost none to fund raising.
Is there any question of who is the better prepared and better organized? These qualities will go a long way in effecting meaningful change.
Viva Obama.
“Time for goosebumps again.”
“I don’t need some asshole from Vermont telling me what to do.”
Heh !!
word.
Yup. They still think they’re the smartest MFs in the room. The level of BS artistry and frantic dis-organization from this crew is somehow seen as meritorious.
I remember way back when a Republican friend of mine told me, “By far, the greatest gift the Democratic Party could give the GOP is to make Howard Dean the head of DNC. It would be a dream come true”.
Thinking about that always makes me smile.
OT: The Field is all over this Penn/Colombia trade deal – could really hurt Clinton in PA, NC,and IN.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
I think it’s only because these sorts of Democrats only looked wistfully at the GOP fundraising machine and wished they could do that. Getting Democrats to march lock-step is near impossible. That’s the bonus of the GOP. They don’t even have to tell their small money donors the truth, just scare them into giving money.
Democrats actually have a likeable candidate who seems to walk the walk. Oddly enough, he has a solid liberal background while seeming–to me at least– to be the ideal centrist. That’s a flip from Clinton who has a solid GOP-ish background, who talked like a liberal to most of his audiences. Obama is a guy who is aware that the way things have been run hasn’t been helpful for America at all and he’s out to change that. Hopefully.
So nice to be connected to the internet again and read rational people writing rational things.
Fundraising is a grind. A friend of mine is a Congressman from near Philly way and he had to spend a TON of time fundraising to get elected. He had to do all that even though he was a netroots favorite. Very few politicians can do what Obama has done, which is use technology and organizing technique to create a movement and get others to fundraise for him. That’s the way to go if you can do it, but most politicians are going to have to spend most of their time fundraising even if they are progressive and charismatic. I wish we’d move to public financing – it would make our political system much healthier.
There are only a very few sick puppies who like whoring for cash. Most electeds DO NOT like doing it. It is soul-sucking, and frankly, a shade degrading.
It’s not like they’re not busy enough. Most of them have to leave what they’re doing, go to their campaign offices, and read through lists, call and suck up for 2 or 3 hours, most days of the week. And trust me, most of them have to be dragged to
So electeds, listen up:
People-driven fundraising is in your enlightened self-interest.
This is what they have to understand…it is freeing for THEM to adapt the Dean/Obama fundraising model. They don’t have to waste their time whoring to people that they do not like, and they are free to really voting their conscience. Big money won’t totally leave, but their influence is more appropriate.
Boy, I could use an editor!
That should read: “…most of them have to be dragged by the collar to make calls.”
And the last sentence should read that big money would have a more appropriate level of influence, and not the disproportionate level they have now. Just wanted to be clearer.
you have mail…
Absolutely! Looking forward to it.
Will type more later when I get back.
Casey’s comment contracts to a nutshell the reason why our elected representatives are unable to do their jobs — why, for example there are no longer serious hearings with real witnesses and position papers. I’m thinking right now of the current banking regulation fiasco. It’s a little early to give up hope, but in the old days — I am talking about the 1950s and early 1960s — Congressional Committees would call up the top academic and business specialists to present papers and positions, which were later wrapped up in a printed congressional report. The old Joint Economic Committee papers are breathtaking.
None of that today. The real work is farmed out to aides, most of whom have poli sci or journalism degrees and know butkis about anything technical. Obviously some exceptions, but you get the point. The reps are out raising money day and night.
If the Obama revolution succeeds, we may get our Congress back. But for it to succeed, there has to be a permanent organization to maintain the flow. A reformed Democratic Party under Dean’s leadership is a possibility. Or a progressive wing. But the funding stream has got to be maintained in the same way that the Chamber of Commerce maintains funding for the thugs. It can’t be a one-off thing that is relit every two or four years. Move-on has gone in that direction, but we need something broader and more securely based in party organiztion.
The threat to the Democratic Party isn’t just a Clinton running or winning in the fall. It’s what she and her gang would do to the Howard Dean DNC. It would be another round of Terry McA. and the likes of him.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have many, many reasons why I am pro-Obama, but if I had to choose my top 3 three reasons, what the DNC would revert to definitely would make the cut.
Here’s the other thing to drive home: it’s not just fundraising. It’s the entire campaign, and when he’s elected, probably his entire administration. He’s a very smart man, and all signs point to him Getting The Internet.
Yep, it’s all those dedicated volunteers.