Obama Wins the Spending Race in a Landslide

[Herman Munster]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080102/cm_thenation/45264629

The figures:

Obama: $9 million and climbing, for more than 11,000 television spots.

Clinton, $7.2 million, for 8,000 spots.

Edwards, $3.2 million, for 3,700.

Independent advertising by labor unions and labor-tied groups has benefited Clinton (around $700,000 in ads put up by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and Edwards (around $600,000 from a Service Employees International Union political action committee and a Carpenters union PAC).

Those AFSCME ads bring Clinton to within $1 million of Obama in Iowa.

But even with the boost from his union supporters, the Edwards campaign's television presence will be far less than half that of Obama's and only about half that of Clinton's.

None of this will add up to anything more than an excuse if Edwards gets whipped in Iowa. The unfortunate reality of contemporary politics is that few concessions are made by the broadcast and print punditocracy to the reality that free-spending contenders can and do buy victories in an era of weak campaign finance laws, big donors and media-defined campaigns.

Indeed, candidates who get outraised and outspent are frequently dismissed as less viable because aren't winning the "money primary."

However, if the populist campaign that Edwards has run finishes ahead of the more cautious campaigns of Obama or Clinton in Iowa, it will be a genuine -- and all too rare -- triumph of message over money.

[sandnsea]

1. And Bunny Mellon's $500,000 for Edwards

Don't forget that.

[zalinda]

3. We can't forget it, because you won't let it go

And you are one of the reasons that I have so little respect for Obama. You represent him so well.

zalinda

[Yuugal]

2. "triumph of message over money"

I hope Hillary and Obama keep bragging about having over 100 mill. Us proles may be slow to learn, but this election I finally feel a much different vibe than the usual circus. Working class/poor Dems are fed up with corporate cash and will start voting against it.

Right wing fundies learned a long time ago how to influence the message within their corporate controlled scam of a party. They show up on election day only if the party leadership gives them a nutty enough whackjob. They'll run a 3rd party guy like Pat Robertson or Ron Paul with no chance just to let their party know next time you either go our way or we don't vote for your shill. Its the only smart thing moonbats do and the result is usually a group of corporate zombies trying to out-crazy each other in their attempts to lurch even farther right.

Why can't progressives be that smart? We need to let the corporate sellouts in our party elite know that we wont tolerate them polluting the Dem message with corporate cash and corporate bought candidates. If we lose the 40 congress people with republican voting records, that might sting a bit short term, but long term as people look for a clear choice between THEM and US, they will find it in the new Dem party. Those same people will never move to us if it is only a choice between republican raw sewage and our watered down version of the same thing. Both are undrinkable.

Go Edwards: my last hope for this party. If we can't get a populist after 8 yrs of Bush and the party feels the need to go lurch right when we should be turning left, after all the crap we've been through, then our party isn't really MY party anymore anyway.

[dmosh42]

4. Excellent reply and a good example of why 'Change' won't happen...n/t

[ThatPoetGuy]

5. I also feel that Edwards is the only hope for America...

but I fundamentally disagree with your reasoning.

The fundies can afford their small losses, because their lives are not harmed by inaction. If losing an election means that they fail to remove more rights from gays and women for another two years, they can live with that.

Their goals are not time-sensitive.

Our goals are. We need to repeal Republican legislation that made it harder to declare bankruptcy or receive compensation for injuries in the workplace, and actual lives will be harmed if we allow far-right scumbag lunatics to take the seats because we refuse to support petty centrists.

The petty centrists won't change the world the way a brace of reformers would. But they will improve the lives of many.

[MGKrebs]

6. "Why can't progressives be that smart? "

What does that mean? Because we can't get organized enough to prop up some decoy candidate ala Robertson or Paul to "keep the others honest" means we're not too smart?
What about Nader? Or Perot? Or Gravel? Or even Kucinich?

I don't think we should mix in congress with presidential politics for something like this. Congress people run in their own districts, and many of them are beatable if you can convince their constituents to change their stripes. If districts do not like their reps, they get the chance to change them every 2 years.

WE have to get the message out and build a constituency so that candidates we like can win. Running proper candidates that can win isn't the beginning of the process, it's the end of it.