Wednesday, April 04, 2007
|
|
Perhaps My Final Post on the Money Primary!
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
3:45 PM
|
|
A lot of people, including some fundraising pros, think I’m wrong to be underwhelmed by Barack Obama’s take. Well, allow me to retort.
I expected Obama to win the 1Q money primary. I also expected Romney to win the Republican side of the 1Q money primary. Regarding the latter, here’s what I wrote on Monday:
I know pols and their supporters have gotten addicted to low-balling in order to spin actual results to look better than they are, but I’ll break with that pattern and be perfectly candid: If Mitt hadn’t proven more skilled at running the “sausage factory” part of politics than McCain and Giuliani, I would have been stunned.
I would have been likewise stunned if the combination of Obama’s celebrity and his “New New Thing” status hadn’t proven sufficient to outpace the Clintons and their ancient McAuliffe-approved methods. The question for me wasn’t whether Obama (or Romney) would win their money primaries, but by how much. For Obama, I had the bar raised high. I thought there was a chance that he would raise more in the first quarter than Hillary would raise in the first and second quarters combined. I thought a number north of $30 million, perhaps well north of $30 million, was in play.
For a newcomer, Obama did great – no question. But he’s not just any newcomer. He’s a mega-celebrity politician. Furthermore, his impressive amount of celebrity flows directly and exlusively from his career as a politician. He’s the first of his breed, and his campaign will challenge a lot of ancient precepts.
Meanwhile, one major candidate has yet to report on his 1Q fundraising efforts. 
Reports are that collections on the Aventine have been impressive.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
This sounds like the expectation Obama will have to meet for the -second- quarter. But for the first quarter? This is his first national campaign and he beat his party's 2004 VP nominee, the chairman of the 2002 Olympics, the 2000 GOP runner-up, and the hero of 9/11. He basically tied the wife of the last Democratic president, whose campaign manager is the DNC chairman once removed, and he did this with her husband leaving horses' heads (figuratively) in the beds of people who dared not donate to her. Remember how Bill leaned on Spielberg to host a Hillary fundraiser instead of one for the Audacious Hopester?
I guarantee that you're more sanguine about Obama's numbers than Hillary Clinton is. |
|
LOL
I'll put it at over $100 million, since that was the production cost of season 1. :-) |
|
I'm curious why Dean thinks Obama is "the first of his breed," and that "his campaign will challenge a lot of ancient precepts." What ancient precepts? Is this a reference to his being a black man? Or is it something else? Because I agree that Obama is unique in being the first viable black candidate to run for president. And given our country's history, that is certainly worthy of note and admiration. But as a politician, I see someone with great political skills but nothing particularly original in his message or the policies he advocates. So I'm not sure what ancient precepts Obama is challenging. He's clearly not challenging the precepts of liberal orthodoxy.
|
|
Hillary did not give her breakdown on contributions. That is more telling than Obama's overall numbers.
Dean I know you are thrilled about Romney because it gives him the chance to jumpstart his campaign (which he may do if Giuliani and McCain keep shooting their own feet and Thompson does not pop in). One thing that Romney needs to work on--why him? Why is he a better candidate than Giuliani, McCain and Thompson? |
|
|
I am looking forward to Dean explaining what he meant by "breed" as it has serious, debasing racial overtones. |
|
|
You wrote that Romney's contributions will give him a chance to jumpstart his campaign. From what I read, he has burned through more than 50% of his 20 million and is still running a distant third in almost every poll or 5th if you include Gingrich and Thompson. So I really have to wonder how much bang for the buck Romney has gotten and will get. I think it is an ominous sign that after burning through $10,000,000, Romney is still only polling between 3-8%. |
|
|
gimme a break. As was clear in the post, the breed is that of the mega-celebrity politician whose celebrity flows exclusively from being a politician, unlike say Arnold Schwarzenegger or even Dwight Eisenhower. We've never seen anything like this. It was a compliment, and I think you know that. |
|
VoiceOfReason writes:
"I also took offense to the word "breed"
I am looking forward to Dean explaining what he meant by "breed" as it has serious, debasing racial overtones."
You liberals have to get over yourselves. Only you would read something racial into a thing like that. He is talking about CELEBRITY and POLITICIAN. If he were caucasian you would not object to the description at all.
You see Dean is color-blind. Liberals are the ones who always seem to differentiate between physical characteristics...they immediately insert all of their background assumptions into everything, does not matter whether Dean shares the same biased assumptions or not. |
|
|
I had hoped that was your explanation, though factually it lacks foundation. There have been many mega-celebrity politicians including Rudy Guliani. So exactly how is Obama different then Guliani using your definition? |
|
Because he has baout 50 times the star quality. Lord knows Obama's not drawing the crowds he is because of the originality of his message.
Regardless, whether you agree with the point or not, publicly suggesting it was somehow racist was utterly without foundation and way out of line. |
|
|
I disagree that Obama is the first "celebrity politician whose celebrity flows exclusively from being a politician." What about John F. Kennedy or Robert Kennedy? I do take Dean's point though that Obama's celebrity flows from his being a politician. I also do not think it is racist to say that his celebrity is due in large measure to the fact that he is a black man running in a country that has a painful history of denying freedom and opportunity to black people. |
|
|
JFK didn't become "JFK" until the race was well along. And RFK's celebrity sprang from dynasitic links, much like Teddy's or even W's. We've never seen anything like the Obama phenomenon before. Therefore, we should expect to see some groundbreaking stuff. |
|
Dems are definitely not thrilled with Hillary so they are gravitating for something different than the old way of doing things. Obama reflects that (stealing Edwards thunder). It helps that Obama is bright and articulate. He appeals to both sides of the Democratic Party.
Republicans are in a similar place. Giuliani and McCain are strong on defense, but have problems with various factions in the party. Dean and Hugh are trying to put Romney in the "Obama" slot but that is not working as planned. Gingrich has some support, but most GOP voters get he cannot win--and the other GOP dark horses have virtually no chance of winning a general election. Fred Thompson can come in as the older (but not too old) outsider guy who appeals to the GOP on a lot of different levels and who is assumed to be electable in the general election.
I still think odds are Hillary will be the Dem nominee, but an Obama v. Thompson race would be really interesting.
|
|
|
I doubt this will be your last post now that the news is out that Obama beat Hillary by $3M for the primaries. |
|
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?
It's true that small details count, but not always.
For example, in an episode of the Simpsons, where Homer goes to a sushi restaurant, he discovers he likes sushi and the scene fades with him rythmically taking sushi from his plate to his mouth. Now, if you look closely, Homer doesn't take from different points on the plate, he takes from the same point on the plate every time. Yet, each time he lifts his sushi-filled hand to his mouth, the sushi he supposedly picked up magically reappears so Homer can take it again, and again, and again, et.
This detail can call for criticism of the animators' neglegence, or lack of artistic talent to pay attention to such an important detail of life. Such a detail mocks and offends the average person through manipulation of the senses through the medium of television and animation.
For those who aren't argumentative, and actually understand how the Simpsons opperates, this detail is not important because A) it's clear that it's a cartoon, and therefore isn't real; B) Homer has has only four fingers so reusing the same morsal does save money and gets the point across; C) the Simpsons constantly deconstructs modern society, politics, and culture through post-modern means, so it may be possible that it was intended as a joke for those who truly understand the Simpsons' sense of humor.
Now, this whole accuse Dean of racism thougt... it's exactly the same as the Simpsons example. You are just too argumentative to see that it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with celebrity. In fact, you knew that all along, but are so desperate to appear intelligent and full of reason that you'll take the most trivial details and manipulate them into your attack. You knew he didn't mean race. How do I know?
"I had hoped that was your explanation."
Once that argument gets smashed, you run to the next desperate detail you can...
"So exactly how is Obama different then Guliani using your definition?"
We don't have to dumb things down and explain everything. The closest Republican example of Obama right now is Fred Thompson. But that isn't 100% accurate because he hasn't entered the race yet, which brings us back to his reason for saying that we haven't seen this breed of politician before. What is that? An unknown candidate who is almost deified because he looks good and sounds good, so people throw money at him. (People argue the same for Fred Thompson)
Now, how is it that the VoiceOfReason doesn't know what Dean meant? Oh, but you do know what he meant. Your whole basis is to find any thing you can to argue with him. That's "reason?" No, that's called manipulation, and some pretty desperate manipulation at that.
You'd make a great ultra-left Democrat. Or even a an anchor on a prime-time MSM broadcast. Ever considered that before? |
|
This guy knows what it takes to win the war, and he has his own loyal army to do it with! The official language will be Latin, and we know capital punishment will be around for a while. Exile for political enemies. Now that could come in handy too.
Abortion? No, he needs people to colonize captured Iraqi and Iranian lands and to participate in the army, and to pay taxes to fund the army.
Gay marriage? No! How can we have kids to raise to colonize the world without parents to have them?
Education? All privatized.
Taxes? Depends on if we're at war or not.
Economy? Trade! Trade! Trade! We gotta be the trade capital of the world!
Illegal Aliens? Titus would rather impose the slavery system. It's easier to implement.
Religion and State? All religions are welcome as long as they don't tick him off.
McCain-Feingold? Titus thinks it's ok to let the people keep their quaint tradtions.
Euthanasia? It's always better to let the people decide these things... thumbs up, thumbs down...
Judges? They must wear togas; hopefully they don't tick Titus off
Wlefare? Only during 150 day and night long celebrations at the Superdome.
Run, Titus! Run! |
|
Fred Thompson does not fall within Dean's defintion of a mega-celebrity politician as his fame flows from his acting career, not from his time in the Senate -- much like Arnold.
As for me being an "ultra-left Democrat", you'd be surprised to learn that I was a lifelong Republican until I grew tired of the Moral Majority and their ilk co-opting the Republican agenda. I became an independent shortly after the Gingrich revolution and vote for the person, not the party. Perhaps you ought to try putting principle before partisanship. |
|
|
Rather than focusing on how much money the candidates were able to raise, we should be focusing on figuring out where they stand on issues other than the war. Poverty is one such issue which is under-addressed. The Millennium Goals were set in 2000, when we agreed to eliminate world hunger, yet we are still waiting for a plan to be developed and implemented. According to the Borgen Project there is a $19 billion annual shortfall to achieving these goals, while $340 billion has gone towards Iraq. I wonder what these candidates are going to do about that? |
|
I don't know what the candidates are going to do about that, but I know what you and I could do. Open up your pocketbook and write a check. It is that simple, and millions of people do it already.
While there may be a unique role for government in facilitating delivery of relief, in the end there is no compassion in giving away other people's money. You cannot "care" without using your own money, your own time, and your own talent and government should not try to supplant that with a program.
Several years ago I lived in Europe for a while in a cradle to grave social welfare state. My observation was that I found some of the stingiest people around--people who wouldn't lift their own finger for anybody. I do not say that all that I met were like that, but far too common. One could ask, "How could that be? We care, right?" What I have learned is that where there is individual initiative, there is compassion. When it becomes someone elses job, compassion within us slowly dies.
Another point you made that I would like to comment on, war is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. These projects you speak of are optional. Where we don't stand up to evil, even militarily when necessary, all of the donations would have little effect. If there should be any government program for this end, it should help mobilize the compassion that is already there in the American people.
Now you may not have intended your comments as I have responded to them. If that is the case, I apologize and wish you the best in supporting your cause. I just wanted to get something off of my chest.
|
|
|
|