The campaign fund-raising figures have been released, and there are a few early winners, and a few early losers.
The winners are quite obvious: Senator Hillary Clinton (D, New York) $26 million, Senator Barack Obama (D, Illinois) with $25 million, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) with $23 million. The loser is also quite obvious as Senator John McCain (R, Arizona) raised “only” $12 million.
Senator McCain has long been known for his attempts to lessen money’s influence in politics; however, money still plays a major role, and he will need better fund-raising over the next several months if he wishes to stay in the race. His less-than-stellar fund-raising figures have been attributed to a disorganized fund-raising team, and a lackadaisical attitude among the fund-raising staff. Needless to say, the campaign announced a reorganization of their fundraising efforts would take place.
The most intriguing part of the figures lies with Senator Obama and former Governor Romney’s fund-raising totals. Romney, though trailing in most polls, took in a massive amount of money over the first phase of fund-raising. Many have attributed this to his ties in the corporate world, as well as to the Mormon church. His multi-million dollar lead on both former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who raised around $17 million) and Senator McCain shows that Romney is to be taken very seriously.
Senator Obama’s ability to raise money, as evidenced by his $25 million, must be making those in Senator Clinton’s campaign a little worried. Not only did Obama, who does have nearly as many fund-raising connections as Senator Clinton, raise nearly as much money as Clinton, but he did so with nearly twice as many contributors (100,000 for Obama as opposed to 50,000 for Clinton), showing his widespread appeal, and the ability to go back to some of those contributors for more donations.
It’s still very early, but with the number of highly recognizable candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards) fund-raising has been outrageous so far. The previous highs for fund-raising at this point were nearly $15 million less than Clinton and Obama’s totals. Howard Dean in 2004, who started off in January with the largest campaign war-chest, had around $40 million. It looks at those some of this year’s candidates will reach those totals by this June.
While this year’s candidates’ ability to raise money is remarkable, it also serves as more evidence that more and more money is required for a presidential campaign, and that the campaign needs to be shortened, and the amount of money spent on it lessened.
Just curious: Obama can raise money, fine. He is fresh and relatively photogenic, not to mention he is black and not frightening.
But WHAT exactly does the man stand for???
Hillary may be momentarily concerned, but I doubt it. She has three things going for her:
1. She has an established track record.
2. She ALSO can raise money, as she is a woman and a Clinton
3. She is meaner than hell, and knows that in a serious fight, Obama is probably dead. He cannot handle her outright wolverine meanness.
Not that I am defending her. I despise her as a presidential candidate.
She may an established track record, but she’s also the most polarizing figure in the nation. People either love or hate Hillary Clinton. 49% of the country said they “would not support her” in a presidential election. Now that’s a slightly misleading phrase, but the number still speaks volumes.
Obama does have the problem of experience. He doesn’t have the Senate voting record that Clinton does, or the experience in the White House. In fact, that was part of the reason why I was hoping Obama would wait until 2012 or 2016, but his “star” is rising NOW, so he made the choice.
His situation is similar to JFK’s in 1960 – he’s got name recognition, appeal, and is an eloquent speaker. However, he’s got something else that JFK didn’t have – he’s black. Now none of that make any difference for his ability to govern or be President of the United States, but it does give his campaign the feel of something new and fresh, and people are desperate for change right now.
That was a bit of a longwinded answer, and it didn’t totally answer the question. If you want to know his stance on issues, visit his website.
Also, a link to his plan for Iraq is in one of my entries:
https://citizenpublius.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/democratic-candidates-plans-for-iraq/
I ask about what he stands for because it is unclear in the mind of the electorate. Clinton has no such uncertainties. Searching his website does nothing to provide a national idea of the man’s positions.
I can’t say that his books have communicated a clear message either. Say that much for Gore. . .his media messages are crystal clear.
The parallel with JFK is interesting. . .I am unsure how well the comparisons hold up to 1960. Primary campaigning has changed a LOT in the intervening 47 years. Kennedy also had the advantage of being a war veteran. . .Obama can make no such claim.
Actually, if you check his website, he lists issues and his stances on them. Nationally, his stances are more foggy, as you’ve pointed out. Part of this is because since he is such a “new” candidate and (foolishly) was not considered a serious challenger for the nomination, he has not been asked many probing questions. Actually, some of the other candidates have even complained about the “soft” treatment he has received thus far.
Today’s primaries are incredibly different from those in 1960. I meant the parallel as strictly how he is viewed as a candidate: inexperienced yet popular, a good speaker, etc. There are numerous other differences (Kennedy’s father basically buying him the election, white, Catholic, etc). I’ve even written about the differences between primaries then and primaries now, and the problems involved with that. You can read about it here:
https://citizenpublius.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/presidential-primaries-too-long/
The other thing to keep in mind is that we are still ridiculously early in the process. We’re still almost a year away from the first primaries. Between now and then, Obama will have to articulate his stances to the public, or he will fade away in the race.