July Fundraising: McCain $27 Million, Obama $51 Million

But I agree it's unlikely he'll be on the ticket. Nowhere near Obama's level of discipline. Can't help but recall the way Biden imploded in '88. Also, the way politicians used to drop out over things they think nothing of hitting back on today. Hillary tried pulling that plagerism BS on Obama and got nowhere with it.

Al -- what do you make of the most recent Gallup poll, that has Obama and McCain tied? Meaningless, until after the conventions and debates?

The only thing clear to me is that this election will be a sharp choice between hope and fear. In the end, this country will get what it deserves. If it chooses fear, it will get plenty to be afraid of. If it chooses hope, it will get a new direction and a real chance to begin building on numerous fronts -- from energy independence to health care reform to sound international relations (and beyond).

I'm waiting patiently for the corporate media to put up a big headline noting that not only is Obama outraising McCain, but his campaign contributions are coming in much smaller doses, which translates into real votes.

It will probably take quite awhile before we see that headline...

I expect the pace of fundraising will accellerate greatly. Right now people are spending money on vacations, plans for Labor Day, and back to school needs. Once that's over, more people will feel free to give, especially once every minute and every dollar really counts.

I also think that the excitement over the historic convention  will  spill over into campaign swag too and help boost fundraising for the DNC as well. Plenty of leftover Hillary t-shirts will help once its clear that the nominaton won't be hijacked. Then it's safe to indulge in nostalgia on her run.

"Regardless of whom Obama chooses, he's accomplished something that nobody, but nobody, has ever accomplished in US politics: coming between Joe Biden and the TV news cameras.)"

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read on this blog.

over at DailyKos today. 

Diarist jneufnyc channels the MSM to report the bad news of Obama's July numbers and all the other catastrophic trends that spell doom for his chances.

You don't play with water rights in the west, that's a minefield that EVERY candidate has always avoided. But McCain put his foot in his mouth, and Ken Salazar jumped right in to make sure he chokes on it.

http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/08/15/news/local/doc48a548fed1e6f...

"Conditions have changed dramatically, so I'm not saying that anyone would be forced to do anything because I'm a federalist and believe in the rights of states," he added. "But at the same time there's already been discussion amongst the states, and I believe that more discussion amongst the governors is probably something that everybody wants us to do." Perhaps that's true among people in water hungry cities in Southern California or Phoenix, but it isn't in Colorado, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar said. The San Luis Valley Democrat and former state attorney general who has dealt with water law for much of his career said opening up the compact is the last thing Colorado or the other upper basin states want because they would be the likely losers in any renegotiated deal.

The Colorado River compact allocates 7.5 million acre-feet of water to California, Nevada and McCain's home state of Arizona. Anything leftover is split between Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/obama-to-general-wesley-c_b_...

I guess that ends the story of Wesley Clark. Good riddance. He was a bad choice.

Bill Conroy has a piece on Narco News about Freedom House and McCain's Kyrgyz connection. In the embedded video, Stephen Payne is talking about the access he can provide for a "small" donation to the Bush Library. He includes the VP's office, Condi and some other State Department officials in his list of possibilities. Then he mentions that he could also connect them with some approachable Democrats--he mentions Joe Biden as a possibility. Joe Biden can have a good screen saver persona, but he is totally a bought man, in my opinion. He would be on my "disappointed" category of VP choices.

(1) RW: I don't buy that. I know Clark won't be at the convention because I've been hearing he's out of town. But I don't think the hammer was brought down at all because Gen.Clark was just defending Sen. Obama on tv this entire week and pushing back against this Russia/Georgia crisis meme that McCain had going there and the media was supporting.

(2) Ed Kilgore makes a great point about McCain's vulnerabilities using the Social Security peg you noticed Al:

I can't recall a competitive major-party presidential candidate who was as dependent on the votes of older voters as John McCain is today. His past and prospective support for Social Security privatization (in the context of an overall fiscal plan that guarantees perpetual raids on Social Security revenues), and his recent attacks on the basic pay-go structure of the program as "disgraceful," expose him to some very real problems with seniors.

 

But the time bombs ticking away in the substructure of McCain's campaign go far beyond Social Security, and extend to issues that currently may be working in his favor. Sure, the present Russia-Georgia conflict may be giving him a good opportunity to talk tough. But it also will increasingly draw attention to his overall foreign policy posture of wanting to fight in Iraq until "victory," while increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and rattling sabers against Iran, and now Russia. The unsettling reality about John McCain is that his foreign policy thinking combines the pre-9/11 conservative obsession with a new cold war against superpower rivals (then China, now Russia and China) with the post-9/11 neocon obsession to fight a new world war against "Islamofascism." How many wars, cold or hot, regional or global, are Americans really ready to undertake?

Rhoda - I've fixed the blockquotes on your two comments. For future use, the way to make blockquotes is:

A. Click "Turn off style tools" (below the comment submission box).

B. Insert your blockquote code there.

C. Click "Turn on style tools" (same place)

D. Then post comment.

I'm not sure what the article is talking about. I don't believe any of it.

Team Obama can't be that reckless about giving the guy a simple speaking invitation when they've basically bent over backwards to make the Clinton crew feel welcome at the convention.

Not to mention that Gen Clark has been a solid surrogote for Obama. Compared to other Hillary supporters, he's done a heck of a lot.

That "report" about Obama allegedly "snubbing" Clark - not sourced, nobody quoted, not even an anonymous source - seems to me like a cheap (and ineffective) attempt to force Obama to put Clark on the convention speakers list. It reminds me of the ridiculous flap over Obama supposedly "snubbing" Clinton on the senate floor last February (remember that nonsense?)

It's entirely possible that for legitimate reasons the Obama team prefers other speakers instead of Clark. Not everybody is so enthralled with the general (I'm among them). But does anybody really believe that the Obama team would treat him or any other party leader so shabbily? I mean, look at the courtesy with which Obama treats the Clintons. Look at the Clinton supporters (Bayh, Strickland and others) given prominent roles at the convention.

I think the blogger that posted that smeary innuendo has his head up his ass. Why give it any more attention by posting it. I wouldn't recommend believing a word of it. It's par for the course for the deceptive tactics used by some in politics!

It was good snark, and it's time to start calling out the Chicken Littles among us, who are really beginning to piss me off.

Andrew Sullivan, who's been waking up on the Republican side of his bed lately, sayeth:

Since Obama's hubris in Berlin, he has lost almost every cycle of this campaign, and lost all of them quite badly. I'm not sure his campaign gets how far they have sunk, and how ineffectual and passive Obama has seemed these past few weeks.

This is what happens when you limit your campaign analysis to nothing but reactions to TV ads and right-wing framing. Sullivan offers no actual data to back up his claims, just the usual gloomy and long-faced posturing, and he weirdly regurgitates Obama's positive-by-every-measure trip to Europe as hubristic (note to Sullivan: stop reading The Corner). Just a few facts to bring his political spine back into alignment: Obama almost doubled McMaverick's fundraising take this month; Obama leads in donations from active duty military; Obama is leading on the economy; with Obama out of the news cycle for the past nine days, McCain still can't move into a lead in the polls; the DNC outraised the RNC for the first time ever; Obama launches shrewd under-the-radar negative ad campaign; the Edwards affair pushes McVirtue's own infidelities into the MSM; and McCain admits in public that he isn't sure who initiated the military action in Georgia - after fulminating for a full week on the issue.

Question for Sullivan: what the hell are you talking about?

Wes Clark, Jr. has just posted this comment over at DKos regarding that claim by Clemons:

I don't think he was told...

Thanks for the help, Al. I'll be sure to remember that for the future.

Moneywise: I think Obama is going to be happy about opting out when he can outspend McCain after the conventions and the RNC will have to help defend house and senate members.

As for VP: I'm still crossing fingers for Sellibus because I like her and I'd be happy with Kaine b/c he's my governor. I really like Joe Biden but given the change mantra and Washington insider thing going in the recent ads: I can't see the Obama camp bringing in a senator for VP or anyone in DC. That's also why I think Daschle, who I actually think Obama is really comfortable with and would bring a lot of institutional knowledge is also not the one.

I wish Warner had taken the plunge, but I respect that he wants to go for the senate and hopefully have a path to the White House in 2016. He and Obama would have carried VA and made a phenomenal ticket; but he can pull Obama along since he's on the ballot too come November. I bet the campaigns will coordinate for turnout efforts.

it's more of the same manufacted b.s. meant to generate "tension/drama" between the Obama and Clinton people.

It's getting old pretty fast.

This is from Steve Clemons' blog giving some context to his post on Clark.

Even though Al just gave instructions about how to do a block quote, I still can't figure it out so I won't past the entire comment here. Basically, Steve said someone on his staff phoned Clark's office to invite him to an event during the Democratic convention. Clark's person said that Clark would not be attending because he had no role. Steve called to confirm because he was surprised. The staffer said the same thing to Steve. Steve thought it wasn't right and posted about it. His last sentence:

That's the whole thing - no big drama....I just accidentally ran into this stuff because of my own invitation to Clark to do something....

ClareOn - Whatever. But Clemons also distorted what he heard, and put it in a headline on HuffPo claiming (falsely, as Clark's own son has now confirmed) that Clark had been told "his services weren't needed" at the convention. What a bunch of effing crap. If Clemons had any dignity he'd take down his diary over on HuffPo. I won't be holding my breath, though.

Al, I agree with you. After I pushed the post button I thought that maybe Steve would like to sit back now and enjoy the warm beverage you offered him while he enjoys the fruits of his labour.

is the same concern troll who challenged the judgement of O not going to Brussels on his foreign trip, which was then duly noted by the likes of Sullivan.  That tells us how much the guy knows.

Why would O go visit Euro paper pushers, most of whom are gone in the summer?  Seriously?

Certainly, no Euro leaders are ever to be found in Brussels, unless there is a high level summit of some sort.

Clemons is truly clueless.  The Gen Clark blog post confirms it, if there was any doubt.  Good grief.

Thanks for sorting it out, Al, so the rest of us don't have to. Clemons ought to be ashamed of himself and a lot of progressives need to calm the heck down and stop turning everything into the end of the world. Before this election is done, we will have seen every imaginable species (strain?) of Chicken Little-ism.

The joke about Biden gave me the best laugh of the day.

i see steve clemmons as an industrious,  well meaning editorial-voice-in-general (with an arkhams asylum for a comment section i might add), but cmon -- he wants chuck hagel for obama's VP!  has he bothered to check out hagel's voting record? and as much as his precious "radical center" banner chokes up a chuckle of some kind from anyone remotely literate, who could argue that the center of the american high-office political matrix is pretty much vanilla rightwingery without the xenophobia (ie the Property Party, as gore vidal puts it).

the fun part of the above post is that i guess clemmons now joins greenwald as another notch on sheriff al's smackdown belt.

peace out.

from the convention speakers list: al gore.

i'd be surprised if he was shut out from the convention.

dark horse veep, perhaps?

I'm not quite buying that it means he is the VP nominee...but what about the thought that he is poised to fill the speaking slot of the VP nominee?  Of course this would mean that the VP nominee is in fact one of the announced speakers.  

I find the scenario quite plausible.  Thoughts?

If Obama picks Biden for VP I have no problem with it. It would be a good mix of a change and experience. It also could help assure older democrats and provide balance to the ticket especially if there are more problems between Russia and Georgia or other former Soviet Union territories that are now independent between now and November. He is also well known so the campaign won't have to spend time we really don't have giving a proper introduction for a less known candidate. Biden would also be good in the VP debate and would be a good attack dog to all the usual republicans smears and low blow tactics. He isn't my first choice but if he is picked I have no problems with it and think it would be a solid ticket.

I think it's awesome that more of the troops abroad are donating to Obama. What a statement that makes! That gives me more reason to believe the VP pick will be one who voted against the Iraq War.

Is anyone else really hoping we get that text message tomorrow? It might make sense to do it then if the Faith Forum doesn't give any good headlines in this week's news cycle.

I wonder what time we'll get it at, whenever it does happen. Midnight? Morning, evening? I keep sitting by my phone impatiently waiting.

There seems to be conflicting opinions on this - from all of it to none of it.

amk

That snark diary isn't a snark after all.

Here is Halperin, the tool's take

Falls short of his top monthly take– $55 million in February.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/08/16/obama-pulls-in-51-million-in-july/

amk

After his visit to Obama HQ,

But the Obama folks are not leaving it to chance. Plouffe said that "turnout is the big variable," and the campaign is devoting an unusually large budget to register scads of new voters and bring them to the polls. "That's how we win the Floridas and Ohios," he said, mentioning two states that went narrowly for George W. Bush. "And that's how we get competitive in the Indianas and Virginias," two of six or seven states that long have been Republican -- but are targets this year.

 "That's why I pay more attention to the registration figures than to the polls I see at this time of year," Plouffe said. "The polls will change, but we know we need 200,000 new voters to be competitive in Georgia, and now is when we have to get them."

That mind-set -- take care of business and don't worry about irrelevancies -- is what struck me in talking to Obama's team in the primary states. Here, as in the states, they seem singularly devoid of turf battles or personal feuds.

snip

In all my hanging out, I got not a clue about Obama's choice of a running mate. Patti Solis Doyle, the ousted Clinton campaign manager who will run the race of Obama's No. 2, told me that -- because she is flying blind -- she had started an office pool. Her entry: Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503098.html

My Sam Nunn theory is reinforced by Obama's answer at the faith forum, naming Nunn as one of the wisest people he knows. The Netroots' collective head will explode if I'm right.

One of McCain's three wisest people was Meg Whitman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman#Political_activities

She might be a dangerous VP candidate for us.

KD

Klaus,

That's great to hear about Nunn. I've been saying an older white guy for awhile because as much as Obama knows he knows, there are too many voters out there who don't think he knows enough and an "older, wiser, experienced, non-threatening white guy" will appeal to the older white voters. Nunn or Hamilton. I originally had Daschle in the mix too but I think he is too liberal to get those same voters.

And this might seal the deal for Nunn - from Wikipedia... "In high school Nunn was a standout athlete, captaining the school's basketball team to a state championship."

I sent dear Andrew Sullivan an email scolding him for his drama queen concern trolling.  Though he hasn't referred to it, at least he did cite another reader taking him to task for his gloom-and-dooming.

Hello,

I am new so please forgive my anxiety in advance.

Since Senator Obama already knows that everything he does/says will be sliced/diced by the MSM as "nuanced and reticent,"  what is the real reason for him agreeing to the Faith Forum? Did Senator Obama gain anything by participating?   I listened to his responses and thought he did well.  He was moderate and controlled. 

It is frustrating to deal with the MSM and their antics regarding this faith forum; they are so in the BAG for Senator Mccain that I cringe.  

I worry about Senator Obama and the upcoming debates; it is obvious that Senator McCain will be prepped at every opportunity and Senator Obama is supposed to go to these forums/debates blind so that he will look less then presidential.  I truly hope he is practicing on a daily baisis and getting rest before these events away from campaighing.  If he thought that the Stephanopoulous debate with Clinton was a hit job, he hasn't seen anything yet.  The Republicans are desparate.    

Finally, how did a pastor (Rick Warren) come to be a moderator and why is he so relevant to the election?  What about the separation of church and state?

I have faith in Senator Obama, but I do not have faith in the system.  The establishment is frightened and they will throw everything his way to stop him from winning.   This will be a long 2 months and 3 weeks until election day.  I wish Senator Obama did not have to fight so many fronts: Hilliary Clinton, John McCain, the uncurious American intellect and the bought MSM.

As you can tell, I am nervous; but I am filled with HOPE for CHANGE!  o:)

Any thougts about the polling situation in Colorado? How much of a bounce should we except after the convention?

Hi Josephine, Welcome!

I believe that he participated because among the faith-based evangelical crowd, he has really nothing to lose. Additionally, his faith-based initiatives etc. should play well against that crowd. I believe that Obama sounds much more authentic than McCain when he talks about his faith.

Tune out the MSM right now and just focus on getting our guy in office! Debates for sure aren't Obama's strong suit but I think he does come across as authetic rather than just spewing talking points, and when he gets to directly counter McCain's points I believe he will do a great job of pointing out his inconsistencies. He's great at finding that jabbing blow while appearing to be above the fray at the same time.

The differences between tonight's forum and the debates are several.

Rick Warren never asked followup questions or cited any examples of prior statements, votes, etc. that contradicted comments made tonight.  Debate moderators will.  You say you're for alternative energy?  Then why have you skipped every vote in the Senate in which alternative energy funding was at stake?

Obama will have the opportunity to cross-examine McCain in debates.  McCain says he's pro-life.  Obama: no abortion ever?  What about rape and incest?  Do we criminalize the women who have abortions anyway?  Do we arrest doctors and nurses if they perform or assist with abortions?  Do they get the death penalty for murder?  And if we're pro-life, why are we executing people in the first place?

McCain's head explodes.

When will the rest of msm start questioning real McCain and his candidacy ?

While reporters at The Post and The New York Times have been vetting McCain, many others give him a free pass. Their default cliché is to present him as the Old Faithful everyone already knows. They routinely salute his “independence,” his “maverick image” and his “renegade reputation” — as the hackneyed script was reiterated by Karl Rove in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column last week.

snip

Corsi’s writings have been repeatedly promoted by Sean Hannity on Fox News; Corsi’s publisher, Mary Matalin, has praised her author’s “scholarship.” If Republican warriors like Hannity and Matalin think so highly of Corsi’s research into Obama, then perhaps we should take seriously Corsi’s scholarship about McCain. In recent articles at worldnetdaily.com, Corsi has claimed (among other charges) that the McCain campaign received “strong” financial support from a “group tied to Al Qaeda” and that “McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

amk

Those who know me from the previous The Field site, know that I cited Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild, for intending to disrupt the world's food supply for profit. I believe, maliciously. [For starters google: Portfolio Lynn Forester Rothschild] Rothschild needs someone other than Obama in office to accomplish it. Now, the August 17, 2008 London Sunday Times reports on Rothschild's efforts to "ambush Barack Obama":

Rothschild is the founder of Together4Us, a group formed to “honour” Clinton and the nearly 18m voters who supported her in the primaries. Among its demands were a state-by-state roll-call of votes - a final show of muscle by the vanquished Clinton - and a prime speaking slot for her.

They got what they wanted after Obama caved in last week. Seasoned advisers fear the convention is shaping up to be a divisive Bill and Hillary psycho-drama. “It’s not something that I would have recommended, but they’re trying to bend over backwards as far as they can to accommodate her,” said Panetta. “I’m a little disturbed that this keeps playing out.”

[...]

The roll-call will not be enough to bring Rothschild back into the fold, however. “We’re not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama don’t exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who think, ‘He doesn’t understand me.’ He is not modest; he is arrogant. He radiates elitism.”

This windbag is a force to reckon with. But she is not immune to ridicule. Keep that in mind, and keep an eye on her. And her efforts.

===============

As for Wesley Clerk, John Pilger has outed that bastard for the lies he participated in during the Kosovo War. Carla del Ponte had the balls to write about Kosovo in a book (her memoir) the Swiss government is trying to silence now. The American version is due out in January, 2009 under a different title than the one that Pilger's names. Everything PIlger writes I remember researching after the war ended, but no one reported it, Pilger's telling the truth; or rather Carla del Ponte is.

Wesley Clark doesn't belong anywhere near the reins of power. Period. Neither does Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild.

I had posted a comment a few threads back wondering what was going on in Colorado.  Seems yesterday 538.com also had a concern post about them.  But mcJoan on Kos yesterday says that McCain committed a major faux-pas yesterday regarding Colorado's water and that it has lost him Colorado.  Presumably we would see this influencing the polls in a week or so.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/16/16825/8416/570/568960

KD

After spending the afternoon with the Obama campaign in my part of town, I forgot all about the Saddleback Church event. (And, Allan, I can't help thinking "Brokeback Mt. lol--what is it about these Western evangelicals? )

By the time I remembered, Obama had alreaded finished his session, so I watched McCrack.

A few things struck me:

The McCrack camp made a point of letting everyone know that McCrack DID NOT listen to Obama's answers to Rick Warren's questions. That was wierd--because what I wanted to know is whether McCrack was privy to the questions beforehand, not so much Obama's answers.

However, I got the distinct impression from watching McCrack answer these questions that he had rehearsed his answers.

"he didn't even have to think of the answers to his questions, they were blunt, and to the point"--said one confirmed McCrack supporter.

"McCain showed decisiviness", said another. (from this morning NPR report of the event).

One more point about the Saddlebrook even: keep in mind that this congregation definately leans Republcan, but Rev. Warren and his flock are apt to be more moderate than the nation as a whole. I think that this event was a masterful opprotunity for Obama to make an opening for attaining moderate Republican support. Rev. Warren did not engage in a 'gotcha' type of trap, and he appeared fair and open minded.

But, again, if McCrack was given the questions before hand, and Obama wasn't, then I would have to reassess my views on all this.

Lastly, I personally see most self professed 'saved', affluent Christians (especially among white churches that support war) as extremely deluded and hypocritical on many levels.

This event helps McCrack firm-up support among the Republican base--and it helps Obama make a pitch to those folks that have many qualms about the overall direction of our country.

They're out in full force after last night's "religious" forum, and the self-flagellating lamentation knob is turned up to HIGH: Obama didn't do enough, Obama is too intellectual, it was a mistake to participate, turning point in campaign, Obama is Dukakis, I'm never donating again, etc. etc. Made me wonder if I watched the same forum.

I thought Obama was great. No, he didn't speak in soundbites, but he rarely does. And he was Daniel in the lion's den on this one. The crowd was clearly tipped in McCain's favor. But Obama was solid, clear, calm. And I believe he achieved what he set out to achieve by agreeing to the forum: he proved to a largely right-wing audience that he is, indeed, a Christian.

KD

congratulations on your first DKos diary.  Not sure if you're a Field Hand, but I put the link up with request to rec it on the Field hand website.  Thanks for taking action - some great comments to your diary - esp. the link to the Obama website site organizing letters to the editor of any paper

called Barack Obama an "elitist."  Honestly, you just can't make this shit up.