Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« What Your $5 Will Be Doing Ton... | From the Mouth of MC Rove »

Thursday, March 6, 2008

$55 Million

posted by on March 6 at 12:55 PM

Obama’s haul for February, $45 million of it from online donations.

RSS icon Comments

1

And, just think, not a cent was used, as it was by Sen Clinton, to drunk-dial the Canadian Prime Minister and say "I was lying about NAFTA! Could you embarrass Sen Obama for me, pretty please?"

But hey, bygones. It's not like we expected her to be truthful.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM
2

But wait, it doesn't count, because most of the contributors came from states that don't matter because Hillary didn't win them. He'll just have to return those contributions if we want a fair contest.

Posted by Ziggity | March 6, 2008 1:15 PM
3

And just think, if Hilary raised this sort of coin all of you O-Bysmals would be all like OMGZ CORPORATE MACHINE!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Non | March 6, 2008 1:18 PM
4

Well, I have to give money to someone now. Can someone plz organize an Obama blimp?

Posted by ron paul supporter | March 6, 2008 1:21 PM
5

That's one helluva-fuckin-lot of money to piss away on a bunch of losses. Way to go, dude!

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 6, 2008 1:24 PM
6

Non @3, you're right. Because if HRC raised that sort of coin it most surely would BE "OMGZ CORPORATE MACHINE!!!!!!!!!" because that, my friend, is who gives her money. 90% of Obama's $55M in the month of February came from individual donations in amounts of less than $100 each and $45M of it was donated online. That means that his donors are, overwhelmingly, Regular Joes. He raised more in February than any campaign in history ever has and he has more individual donors, at over one million already, than any campaign ever has. The fact that it is regular Americans pushing his campaign forward is undeniable.

Posted by Samantha | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM
7

@3, that's because the only way Sen. Clinton would feasibly raise that much would be by using the corporate machine to find her big donors.

If she had raised $55mil and 90% of those donations were $100 or less, then no, I don't think anybody would be saying that.

That's just amazing. And cool.

Posted by V | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM
8

Apparently Samantha and I were thinking alike at 1:25 PM!

5280, Obama won more delegates out of Texas than Clinton, and he was polling about 20 points behind in both OH and TX just a few weeks ago. What the Obama campaign was able to pull off-- and it wasn't all about money-- was far beyond what most people expected.

Posted by V | March 6, 2008 1:31 PM
9

$55 million - and he couldn't beat a girl that nobody even likes.

Posted by umvue | March 6, 2008 1:33 PM
10

Hillary still raised $35mil mostly from online donations. Plus she won 3/4 states on Tuesday with $20mil less. Hopefully Obama will keep up his great fundraising skills for the DNC when HIllary is the nominee.

Posted by wow | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM
11

@6

It wouldn't matter. You O-Bysmals would still spin it as ZOMG HILLARY CONVINCED CORPORATIONS TO DONATE ONLINE AND AT SMALL INTERVALZIS SO THAT EVERYBODY WOULD THINK THAT THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS!!!

*devastating eye roll*

Posted by Non | March 6, 2008 1:42 PM
12

I give money to Obama. I will give nothing to Hillary.

Posted by Clint | March 6, 2008 1:51 PM
13

cha-CHING! and more to come...

tell me again, @10, how she won Texas? barely in the primary, and LOST in the caucuses, and is likely to net fewer delegates in the ultimate result.

"It's the delegates, Stupid."

Posted by Andy Niable | March 6, 2008 2:01 PM
14

Non, take a step back. You sound ridiculous.

Posted by V | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM
15

@14. OK.

So am I doing a good job at mirroring your fervor? Yes?

Posted by Non | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM
16

@11,

Yes, Obama supporters would try to find a way to spin it, just as Clinton supporters are claiming that Obama wasted all that money, since he's so clearly losing, losing, losing. I mean, God, why doesn't he give up already? He only wasted all that money to climb 10 to 20 points up from where he was a month ago. What an ineffective doofus.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 6, 2008 2:10 PM
17

Not mine in particular, or that of the many intelligent Obama supporters I know.

There are irrational people in all camps. Senator Clinton has major corporate connections, but she is a great candidate. When she raises a lot of money, it gets lauded as an achievement. It's the same in this post.

Are Obama supporters excited about this news? Sure. But the only "ZOMG" I see on this post is yours.

Posted by V | March 6, 2008 2:10 PM
18

I'm sorry, but I just can't stop wondering how much of that money went up his nose.

Posted by Elvis | March 6, 2008 2:11 PM
19

@5 That's one helluva-fuckin-lot of money to piss away on a bunch of losses. Way to go, dude!

Funny... I think that Clinton's 12-in-a-row qualified for that much more than Obama's narrow losses!

Posted by bma | March 6, 2008 2:12 PM
20

Last data points show Obama has more delegates from Texas, even while Clinton is whining about it.

But, hey, when you win the 1st and 3rd largest states in a 4 state lineup on Tuesday, shouldn't the 2nd and 4th place winner call it for herself?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM
21

It's totally unfair to Hillary for people to love Obama.

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 2:16 PM
22

Um, 5280: February went Obama 24 contests, 1124 pledged delegates; Clinton 8 and 986.5.

Posted by Fnarf | March 6, 2008 2:19 PM
23

You wanna talk corporate money, ask the woman who was on the board of WalMart...

Posted by Andy Niable | March 6, 2008 2:40 PM
24

What happened to all the positive campaigning, Obama-people? This is good news for your candidate and all you can do is whine about how people are still voting for Clinton!

It's hilarious!

Posted by Soupytwist | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM
25

I want to see how much you love Obama six months into his Presidency. You know, when he's doing his very convincing impression of a motorcyclist hitting a brick wall at 100 mph, cuz he hasn't got the first clue. We can call him Jimmy Carter 2.0.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM
26

Obama is no Jimmy Carter, 5280. If you think he's clueless with his background and accomplishments, you obviously have a bias that transcends both experience and education.

Sorry if all the Clinton jokes here are getting to you, Soupy-- but it is the internet, after all. In the real world, we're keeping it positive for both Obama and Clinton as best we can.

Posted by V | March 6, 2008 3:31 PM
27

I'm pretty sure Hillary would run her presidency they same way she ran her campaign. Six months in, her team would be leaking dirt on each other and getting fired in disgrace and Hillary would be whining at how unfair the media is being to her.

And Obama would pick his White House team the same way he picked his campaign team, and they would get the job done. But I know old Fifty-Two-Eighty only trusts old, white men, so what's the point in talking about empirical observations?

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM
28

@27: I think that's an argument that Obama needs to start making. A compare and contrast of their styles and tactics...emphasizing the scorched earth that surrounds everything Clinton.

Posted by gnossos | March 6, 2008 7:00 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).