February 07, 2008

2/7: Cash Rules Everything Around Me

After it was revealed that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, the Barack Obama campaign responded with a fundraising push of its own. Since the polls closed on 2/5, the Obama campaign has raised over $7 million online, while the HRC campaign has raised $4 million. Many liberal bloggers are discussing the significance of these fundraising numbers. Will the Obama camp -- aided by MoveOn -- outraise and outspend the HRC camp in the coming weeks? Or will the Clintons manage to keep pace by gathering donations from small donors, as it has done during the past 36 hours?

DEM FIELD: The Road To Denver

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There are only two paths to the Democratic nomination now. One path, for Clinton, is based on her maintaining a tie or a narrow lead among pledged delegates, thus allowing her to seal the deal through a rules and bylaws engine that focuses on superdelegates and the Michigan / Florida delegate seating process. The other path, for Obama, is based on him taking a narrow pledged delegate lead, and then slowly building that lead through a string of victories that will eventually make Clinton's super delegate lead a democratic farce, and her Michigan / Florida claims irrelevant."

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Going forward, Obama has the edge in money and in the next few states, both organizationally and demographically...[HRC]'s got to dig in somewhere between now and March 4 (OH and TX), because one loss after another is really going to hurt her. So look for her to really make a stand in Virginia and to find another state someplace where she can really dig in. On the Obama side, they have to figure out a Hispanic strategy. With Texas looming on the horizon, they are going to get murdered in that very big state if they don't figure this out fast...Also, the Clinton campaign has targeted the hell out of white women voters and has done a great job turning them out. The Obama campaign will never win them, but has got to figure out how to improve that percentage."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama is now the front-runner: "Clinton came nowhere near what she needed to do [on Super Tuesday] to build a strong delegate lead (and super delegates can change their mind, they're not locked in). Obama needed to survive, and he did more than that -- he outright won the night. Now his job is to finish off Clinton. If he can rack up a full month of 20%+ victories the rest of this month, he does just that. People accused me of playing the expectations game before Super Tuesday by lowering the bar to Obama. Hogwash, I'm calling them as I see them. And that last [sentence] is proof -- do you think the Obama spin is that he needs to sweep the rest of the month by 20% margins to knock Clinton out? Obviously not. But if Obama does that, Clinton's money will dry up and the momentum toward the March contests will create an Obama tsunami."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks Obama has no chance to win the nomination: "What [Super Tuesday] revealed is no amount of spin, mo, Media and endorsements can get Obama over the hump in big heterogenuous states...The dynamics of this race are now set in stone. No amount of Media and Mo and Kennedys can get Obama over the hump. He can not win women, Latinos, older voters and lower income non-African Americans. The Obama coalition is simply not enough...The bottom line is nothing has changed from Nevada. Obama can not break through. He will not be the Presidential nominee. He will be the Vice Presidential nominee."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher also thinks Obama is in trouble: "The Obama campaign won every media cycle in the days before Super Tuesday largely based on the Kennedy endorsements, and despite this he took a 14 point drubbing in Massachusetts. The boost he was supposed to get among Latinos based on the Teddy factor never materialized. If I was the Obama campaign I'd be scratching my head this morning going 'what do we do for an encore?'"

DEM FIELD II: Dolla Dolla Bill, Ya'll

Many liberal bloggers are discussing the Obama camp's fundraising prowess and the pressure it is putting on the HRC camp:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The Obama campaign has now raised north of $5.7 million -- and rising -- since polls closed last night. That's just a stunning number...Hillary Clinton was able to keep up last year with a flow of $2,300 checks, as well as a solid transfer from her Senate reelection campaign account. However, with a sizable majority of donors already maxed out (see Adam Boninhere , here, here and here), it's becoming increasingly (though nevertheless surprisingly) clear that relying predominantly on big dollar donors to go up against another campaign that enjoys the support of both big dollar donors and also hundreds of thousands of smaller dollar donors (don't think that that John Kerry endorsement didn't do anything) may force a candidate to turn not only to one $5 million loan but another potential subsequent loan as well."

MyDD's psericks: "Progressive, creative-class, web-based organizations like MoveOn, with its three-million-strong email list, as well as communities like DailyKos, are now starting to fall in behind [Obama's] candidacy --- most likely a crucial element behind his fundraising surge [last night]...Could this be the beginning of a fundamental change in the way elections work? The moment when a candidate used the internet to launch him farther than any candidate has before, to actually break past the strongest candidate the establishment has to offer?"

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum speculates about why Obama is raising more money than HRC: "Hillary Clinton obviously has plenty of ability to raise money from big donors, but as we all know from endless regurgitation of exit poll results, her supporters tend to be older, lower income, less educated, and more likely to be working class. On a mass basis, (a) they just don't have as much money as Obama's supporters and (b) they don't hang out on the internet a lot. Obama's fans, conversely, are heavily made up of white collar, college educated folks who might not be accustomed to writing $2,300 checks but are perfectly able to comfortably write a few $200 checks here and there -- and aren't rattled at the idea of filling out a donation page on a website to do it. Hillary's plant workers and Social Security recipients, not so much."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks both Obama and HRC will have sufficient funds in the coming weeks: "So Obama's raised 2:1 over the last 24 hours, against Clinton. If they continue on like this for a few more days, Obama will have $15M to Clintons $7.5M more to spend...the point is, there is more than enough money being raised by both sides that its not really a significant advantage, especially at the Presidential level -- you need enough money but having a ton more cannot alone win it. Ask Ron Paul."

MCCAIN: Everybody Get Together, Try To Love One Another

Several conservative bloggers are urging John McCain's critics to dial down their attacks on the AZ senator:

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I've long been dismayed by the fury of many conservatives' attacks on John McCain. I understand why McCain is not some conservatives' first choice for the nomination, but the ongoing effort to read him out of the conservative movement has gone way too far. To assert, as some have, that there is 'really' no difference between McCain (average [Americans for Democratic Action] rating from 2002 through 2006 of 23%) and Hillary Clinton (average ADA rating over the same period of 96%) is the kind of never-mind-the-facts shrillness that we expect from the Left, not from our fellow conservatives."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The case that McCain is as bad as Hillary Clinton is untenable, and the case for 'staying home' this November is almost as weak."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "John McCain isn't a perfect conservative -- we can all agree on that. However, whether it's government spending, the surge, or the right to life -- there is no doubt that John McCain would be dramatically better than either Democrat. Granted, the folks who argue that the conservative movement would be better off if Hillary wins, have a point...[but] I believe the stakes are too high to take this gamble. The long-term damage to the country that a Hillary Clinton presidency could bring is simply too severe."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey urges conservatives to meet McCain halfway: "The conservative wing of the Republican Party is one of several factions within a big tent. Within that movement exists sub-factions as well...Factions that refuse to cooperate in a coalition wind up marginalized and pushing the coalition in the opposite direction. If McCain wins the nomination without conservatives, he will push towards the center in the general election. Win or lose, the conservatives will have no influence on public policy either way, and will not be trusted as coalition partners for a long, long time afterwards."

MCCAIN II: Support McCain? Over My Dead Body!

Other conservative bloggers are still not willing to support McCain (at least not yet), and are urging their readers to instead concentrate on electing other conservative candidates in '08:

Dan Riehl: "One cannot one day be pointing out how bad an individual has been, and is, for conservatism in America, then turn on a dime to suggest the GOP is more important than our principles. Not if one wants to retain their credibility and integrity...While acknowledging there is an election in November, serious conservatives would be better served positioning the movement to jump back in the battle after November, so that we can help to elect more conservative members to the legislature -- and of course vote the under card this Fall. I could never pull the lever for a top ticket containing the name McCain, or [Mike] Huckabee, should they prevail."

Michelle Malkin: "Sen. John McCain's campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right -- from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents -- dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat...Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders -- no matter who takes the White House in November."

NRO's Mark Krikorian suggests a conservative third-party candidate: "Most people who, like me, can't bring themselves to vote for Amnesty John will just stay home. Unless...they have someone else to vote for. A third-party candidate for president may be essential for limiting the damage to Republicans in Congress. For instance, the Libertarian and Constitution parties, which are on the ballot in almost all states, could agree on a joint anti-McCain ticket...Such a ticket could conceivably get 1 or 2 percent of the vote, and some of those voters would otherwise have stayed home, potentially spelling the difference between congressional Republicans getting creamed like 1974 and merely suffering small losses."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer writes an open letter to McCain: "[Your] differences with the conservative movement, in terms of issues, have been well publicized. But honest differences are acceptable. What is not acceptable is your habit of lashing out at the right, questioning the motives of conservatives who disagree with you, accusing them of corruption or of other nefarious intent...[Today], you make a big speech at CPAC -- a gathering you shunned last year, snubbed your nose at, and then insulted by trying to hold a reception at the same hotel at the same time -- and you hope to convince conservatives that you are one of us and that we ought to support you...I supported you eight years ago. It will require far, far more than one good speech, though, for me to applaud you again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Failed Strategies

The Wall Street Journal's Michael Barone:

"What I find most striking about this nominating season is that every candidate's strategy has failed. Yes, each party will still nominate someone. If one rule of a zero-sum game is that all players but one must lose, another rule is that one must win. But not because his or her original strategy worked."

LEST WE FORGET: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz on why he's leaving John Kerry for Barack Obama:

"My biggest mistake was, in 2004, I supported John Kerry -- which was not a mistake, I'm proud of supporting John Kerry, but the mistake I made was that I gave John Kerry my email address. As a result, like many John Kerry supporters, I still receive emails periodically from JohnKerry.com. And I sort of feel like John Kerry is like a bad ex. [...]

I just feel like there ought to be some way to tell John Kerry to stop emailing me without hurting his feelings. Like if I could say 'It's me, not you.' You know there's nothing wrong with him, it's just that I've moved on, and I'm looking for something different now and I'm sort of having an existential crisis. I still have feelings for him, it's just they're not the feelings I used to have. I have more of those feelings for Barack Obama. [...]

[Kerry's] apparently moved on to Barack Obama too because he's endorsed him. But then I'm thinking, is he just stalking me? Because he knows I'm with Barack, so now he's with Barack? I don't know. It's weird. It's just weird."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 7, 2008 01:10 PM