Spend like a Democrat

spending.jpg

So far the American presidency is worth $252 million to Barack Obama.

This graphic is clipped from the AP through New York Daily news. Click on it to read their story. Hillary Clinton’s spending is included there.

Should we run a pool for the total amount spent on this election? By each candidate?

Comments

  1. And retain debt like a Republican.

    Cindy, what are you going to do when election day actually arrives and Obama gives our friend John McCain a hernia?

  2. Shawn, when are you going to realize how predictable you are?

    $1.3 million in debt for $11.7m spending in the month of May isn’t a big deal. Someday when you pay bills you’ll realize not everything is due at the same time. It’s call “accounts payable” in the grown up world.

  3. Cindy,

    Isn’t the amounts raised for Obama also including all the campaigning he had to do against Clinton until 2-3 weeks ago?

    John McCain has been the Republican nominee since what? March? While he could have done tons of fundraisers, he apparently didn’t choose to.

    Obama has had to raise plenty of funds to campaign against Clinton, and now against McCain. I think that’s why you see that large gap in the overall funding.

  4. Of course, Greg. That’s pretty obvious.

    But he still blew through $252 million to buy a presidency.

  5. Cindy, I pay the bills myself, for myself, for the bills that I incur. That wasn’t a great comeback, but predictable nonetheless.

    You know what’s horrible? Obama has millions of people at a grassroots who are funding his campaign, that’s a terrible thing. McCain can’t float without taxpayer monies.

    And speaking of predictable, let me guess that you’ll have another Obama-bashing every day for the next week while avoiding every time McCain calls his wife a trollop and a C**T. Guess those are some family values at work there. Fairly conservative, shall we say?

  6. Shawn, that’s an old rumor and you are really losing your ability to manage an argument if that’s what you bring to the debate. You used to really try.

    I don’t know what’s set you off in the last couple of months, but I can’t say I enjoy your participation lately. If you can’t stand the content, then don’t read the blog.

    Now, back to the debate on campaign finance spending. The idea as it was crafted was for candidates to use a fixed amount in an effort to reform political campaign spending. Initially Mr. Obama thought it was a great idea, and there is plenty of evidence to support that statement. As he has, in fact, managed a successful fundraising effort, he sees the promise of more money available to him without the constrictions attached to the public money. He changed his mind when he sensed a better opportunity down the road.

    BFD? Not really. He can spend what he wants. What’s important to recognize is a man, running for POTUS, that changes his mind in order to increase his personal gain. Such a quality as exhibited by Obama lends evidence to the argument that he’s unreliable. This is an important campaign issue and he rejected his earlier ideals when it was favorable for him to do so.

    Now, Shawn, if you want to debate the ISSUE join in. Should you continue with your current behavior I will ask you to walk away.

  7. Wait, didn’t McCain try to opt out of public funding after he took out a loan that was predicated on public financing in the future?

    He opted in when he figured out he would be in some legal trouble. So, to me, yes Obama changed his mind–but didn’t McCain too.

    My question is, why aren’t you nitpicking on that? Or the whitey comment is only a rumor, too. So you will openly discuss the whitey comment but not the C**T comment?

    That’s my point and you always manage to skirt around it.

  8. Because it’s my blog and you don’t have to read? What makes you think that this site is so freaking important that you need to go ballistic after every post about Obama?

  9. I’m not ballistic, but you try to tout yourself as a “fair” person who looks on both sides of every issue–that you are not a total partisan.

    I guess that’s false advertising to me, and yes while it is your blog, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be a devil’s advocate, right?

    I’m just making sure that we’re as even-handed as possible 😉

  10. To a sufficient degree, Shawn. Read the most recent post?

  11. I’ll still be a Devil’s advocate! I always have been, and probably always will be.

  12. So OK, Obama is “blowing” $252 million for a Presidency. I’d like to see if you’ll research President Bush in 2000 and 2004 to see how much he blew in for each term. Also, I’d like to see what happens this November when the final numbers come out. While I think we both know Obama will be trumping McCain on spending and fundraising, we’ll also clearly know that there is/was a reason for that.

    I’m just glad you acknowledged the obvious about Clinton, Cindy. I’m sure if McCain had a close one with Huckabee he’d be in the same fundraising/spending zone as Obama.

  13. BrkfldDad says:

    Greg – I was interested in the previous election numbers too. The only thing I could quickly find is that the ‘Republicans’ spent $240MM through 11/1/04 on the election. Not sure who is all in that total, but it does include Bush’s spend. Also, it should be noted that Obama has ‘blown’, not ‘is blowing’ $252MM for a Presidency. That’s his spend to date, and the general election fight has just started! I wouldn’t be surprised to find he spends $500MM in the end.

  14. Shawn said Obama “changed his mind” but in fact Obama reneged on a promise. That’s a huge difference and an indicator of his character. I don’t trust him one bit….Obama that is. It won’t matter one bit to the Obama supporters, but one can hope that it will matter to the independents.

    The sad thing is that McCain is another Bob Dole in my opinion. Grandpa against youth doesn’t seem to fly these days. I have a feeling lots of people won’t vote and that will be good for Obamistas.

  15. Kathryn says:

    Campaigns don’t pull money from thin air, people give it to them for that purpose. People spent those millions, and if it is true that Obama’s donors are not the usual fat cats, that is truly remarkable.

    Obama’s reversal on public financing is disappointing given the emphasis he placed on it previously. It chips away at the integrity I admired in him. Nonetheless, it is probably the right decision for his campaign. The arguments that 527s have not been a major factor so far are somewhat disingenuous, since we have every reason to expect that they will be major players.

    Cindy’s argument that Obama’s flip flop is evidence of his unreliability is not credible; the decision does not hurt his supporters. It is better evidence of how campaigning diminishes the candidate. That is not the right phrase, but it is as close as I can get this morning. Something about the political system dehumanizes the participants.

    David Brooks took Obama apart in his Friday column for this reversal and others. Sadly, there are even longer lists of McCain flip flops (the disadvantage of age and experience?)

    People have feet of clay. Politicians have large foot prints.

  16. Grant, I think lots of people would vote if the two stuck to their principles. They both seem to be in traditional Party mode now, and few can be inspired by that.

  17. Obama is much, much more of a “machine” politician than McCain is. It’s the crooks in Chicago politics that put Obama where he is, while McCain has bucked his party over and over. How he ever got the nomination is beyond me…and most true conservatives. Believe me, Obama is no Jack Kennedy!

  18. Having a near 3 to 1 advantage in funds wraps it up for B.O. “The Secular Messiah”. The monetary advantage will insure that the Sheeple are well hypnotized and brain washed staring at his ever present image on their HDTV’s.

  19. Kathryn, first you say, “It chips away at the integrity I admired in him,” but then you say, “Cindy’s argument that Obama’s flip flop is evidence of his unreliability is not credible…”

    Can you resolve this conflict in your argument for me?

  20. Not in any tidy idealistic fashion. The system is inherently conflicted, as are human beings.

    My point is that politicians sacrifice bits of principle in order to govern. It’s not a good thing. For candidates that really are idealistic, it’s diminishing to them as people. (In our system, they make some big compromises up front; in a parliamentary system they get elected “pure” and compromise after–when they form a coalition.)

    I thought for a while that Obama might be something very different, but when he entered the primaries, he started to go political in a public way. (Yes, I understand that he was political before. 🙂 )Now that he’s the candidate, he’s gone farther. It doesn’t make him less reliable than any other politician–some of them are good leaders. In fact, you could argue that right now he is leading a campaign rather than the nation, and his campaign decisions have been sound.

    I have similar feelings about McCain. He has noble instincts and a history of bucking the party, as Grant noted. Now he is flipping toward any position that was ever considered Republican in order to solidify himself with the party base. It’s a sorry sight, but he could still be a good president–one that the country could rely on.

    George HW Bush flipped on abortion before his second run at the office. He flipped on economics in order to be VP. He flipped on taxes after he took office. He was still a pretty solid, reliable leader and statesman.

    I hope that whoever wins in Nov., he will recall his ideals and revert to form–at least somewhat.

  21. “Now he is flipping toward any position that was ever considered Republican in order to solidify himself with the party base.”

    I see McCain continuing to buck the base – he’s admitting to needed reforms in energy policy, he’s admitting to emissions as a source of harm to the environment. You need to be more specific if you want me to believe your statement.

  22. Here is someone else’s list. I recognize some of them.

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

  23. The best is that Grant thinks Obama came out of the Chicago machine. Want some history?

    Obama ran in his first congressional primary against Chicago Democrat Bobby Rush (in one of the most reliably Democratic machine districts in the country). He then ran for the Senate against the Chicago machine.

    No one goes anywhere in Chicago without the blessings of the Daleys, but Obama is no machine product. That’s just preposterous.

    Oh and Obama NEVER promised to take public funding. He selected “Yes” on a questionnaire which read that “if the Republican candidate opts into public funding for the general election, will you consider it?”

    Nevermind the fact that McCain started his general election campaign without public funding until a few months in. Obama didn’t promise anything.

  24. You’ve become a master at rewriting history, Shawn. William Daley, the mayor’s brother, is an Obama political adviser. It takes a whole lot of stretching to consider him part of the Daley network – NOT!

  25. I never said he wasn’t connected to the Daleys, I said he wasn’t born unto the Chicago Political Machine…that is rewriting history as well.

  26. Beleieve me, there are “reform” Dems in Chicago and “machine” Dems. I talked to several state legislators from Chicago and all of them pointed to Obama’s “reform” attitude (and this was before and during the early stages of the race).

    Most people think if you are a Democrat in Chicago you come out of the machine. That simply is not true. Obama was an outsider who challenged the machine–but has still made friends with the Daleys. He can be bipartisan, remember?

  27. The typical Obama supporter spews forth b.s. and ignores the truth…just like all good Dems do! Obama has NO credentials to quality him to be President, and he IS a product of corrupt IL politics! That’s the truth and it’s documented.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
    Excepted:
    “In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

    Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.”

    The disgusting thing is that he decides he can raise more money on his own, so he says that proves the “system is broken”. Sure, and it’s liars like him that have broken it and long with their leftist allies who are bent on destructive policies. We WILL get change…and only the leftist will like it!

  28. I thought it was pretty remarkable the other day when Obama admitted at a campaign fundraiser that he was inexperienced. (He also said he had a funny name, and by the way, he’s black.)

  29. you claimed he promised and he actually didn’t. McCain didn’t opt in to public financing (and was actually trying to get out of a legal promise HE made to a bank for a loan) until after the commencement of the general election.

  30. For years the left has touted public financing as the solution to campaign funding. Their real reason for pushing this is that they thought the Republicans were getting the upper hand financially. Now that their man is getting the upper hand they have abandoned their principles. It was all about money not ‘fairness”.