A prominent liberal commentator approached me today and said, "I'm sorry I voted for Obama." This person was livid about Obama's vote for the FISA bill. ("Telecom immunity is a biggie for me," s/he said.) And this commentator, after complaining Obama's plans for the economy and energy independence were not extensive enough, shared his/her big fear with me: "He's an empty suit."
That's not my take. But there's obviously a liberal backlash against Obama, especially among a small cadre of bloggers who were enraged by his vote for the FISA legislation. Liberal voices, such as Arianna Huffington, have slapped or blasted Obama for supposedly moving to the center. My hunch is that these criticisms do not reach the swing, independent, moderate, whatever-you-call-'em voters who don't yet know for whom they're going to vote. (Obama versus McCain--you have to be pretty distant from the political process to have to wrestle over that choice.)
But I suppose one question is whether the left-of-center complaints about Obama provide any drag on his campaign. In 1992, similar criticism of Bill Clinton did nothing to slow down Clinton, who angered (or irked) many liberals with his triangulations and connections to the Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate-backed group that spent much of its time bashing the base of the party. But the more contemporary evidence is Obama's continued success at fundraising. On Friday, his campaign announced that he had raised $52 million in June. That's $30 million more than McCain raked in--and only $3 million less than what Obama raised in his best month (February).
Bottom-line, he's still going strong. At least in June, that is. All this fundraising was before his FISA vote and before the media misreported that he was backtracking on his vow to disengage in Iraq. But the numbers indicate that throughout June, after he became the presumptive nominee, he still was drawing new supporters (Hillary Clinton backers?) and continuing to build an enormous base of donors he can tap for the general election. The July fundraising figures, though, will be interesting--revealing whether the recent outburst of liberal dissatisfaction has spread beyond the blogs (and whether McCain's recent blunders have even further dampened enthusiasm for his campaign).
It's not hard to imagine the calculation going on at Obama HQ: we'll take the grumbling, as long as Obama can still work his magic with voters (especially those in-the-middle uncommitteds) and donors. But at some point, might there be a real cost? Watch the July ticker.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Haven't heard anything 'bout here....
Posted by: Hajji
| July 17, 2008 2:18 PM
It's hard to judge what's going on using the fundraising as a gage, because I don't feel sure about where all that money is coming from (I mean really coming from). He was raising a lot more money than Hillary even when she was beating him three to one in some areas.
As far as the statement the commentator made about Obama being an empty suit, that's not the way I see it. I see him as a pawn being used by many people with many unknown agendas. Anyone getting that much money has to have a LOT of weight behind him and owe an awful lot of favors.
I can only guess how disappointed many people are in him. The one' s that had the highest expectations. It must be a rude awakening for them to realize that he's just a politician. Others either won't notice or won't care.
I'm sure there's not much the guy can say anymore, without it being approved by lord only knows how many people. I'm not even sure he knows what he believes anymore.
Of course, can't think of much that's good to say about McCain either.
ps.
Nick, if you're ever here, hope you'll say hi. I'll check back occasionally.
Posted by: chloe
| July 17, 2008 3:08 PM
Soliciting shady contributions
http://www.politico.com/kotecki/0708/Soliciting_shady_contributions.html
Posted by: chloe
| July 17, 2008 3:20 PM
WUERKING DRAWINGS
http://www.politico.com/wuerker/index-drawings.html
Posted by: chloe
| July 17, 2008 3:25 PM
DC,
Like I always said, the HRC cum McCain PUMA voters never gave him a dime to begin with.
Can't lose support from wherre it never was, eh?
Thanks, another good piece!
Posted by: capt
| July 17, 2008 4:39 PM
DC,
I think you might be putting too much stock in "Watch the July ticker."
If nothing changes Barack wins so a poor ticker in July really menas nothing on the margins. I don't expect the numbers to fall low enough to matter - the numbers would have to fall too much too fast.
My prediction - the numbers will be a little different - NBD.
Posted by: capt
| July 17, 2008 4:44 PM
The new Reich-wing meme?
Unfair coverage - Barack is dominating the media coverage?
Oh dear, McCain needs more coverage, they need to put him on the TV 24/7 - it will be the end of him. If anything his camp should be whining about the lack of coverage on Barack, they really don't want the white hot spot light on the old man. He just looks bad when he does, he can't speak, can't remember names or places and he is decidedly not funny. . .
Kinda funny the big war hero is the thin skinned whiner of the two.
lolololololo
Posted by: capt
| July 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Am I the only one who questions the 'Hero' credentials of McCain. I say he was a war criminal for bombing North Vietnam. He admitted as much to his captors, for which his stay was made very pleasant. Of course, had he been a guest of the United States, he would not only have been tortured, but still be locked up with no hope of release - ever.
Mrs.01 says he was following orders such as my son and nephew would be compelled to follow. I respond that they must be able to know when to say NO. Also, in comparison to McCain, it would be me giving them the orders, since his father was an admiral. Not likely that would happen in my case.
As far as being a pilot and a hero, his record as a pilot was nominal, but he was not very good at landings and crashed five planes. And had his daddy not been an admiral, he would have been less likely to be a pilot than George W. Bush. They both would have been sent to Nam on the ground without their fathers influence, and neither should have ever been allowed to fly.
And the war crimes didn't end in 1974. The attack on Iraq and the support of those that voted to allow it were a war crime as well. The continued support for that cause is a crime, and the intention to continue in that direction a crime as well.
Mrs.01 says that's a judgment I can't make, and I point to the fact that my opinion has nothing to do with this; I have never written an international rule of law, and will never sit on a war crimes tribunal. My concurrence or not with the law is no validation, nor does my opinion invalidate the rules.
As far a the new FISA law, two presidential candidates voted to subvert the constitution. Many non-candidates voted for this as well. They took an oath to uphold and defend that constitution. They belong in jail for their vote. McCain and Obama should be impeached in advance for this transgression. The law cannot stand as it was written, passed and signed. It flies in the face of a greater law and since it is not a law we can defy, it is certainly one which we should demand be overturned.
In the meantime we will elect Obama to lead our country. The alternative is not an option. We can hold him to the fire beginning on January 21, 2009.
There are too many patriots in this country. Not the pussies wrapped in flags, but those who see the purpose of this country and will live to ensure that it 'stays the course', aside from the slime that has been attached to that slogan in recent times.
So add my name to the miilion others on the "T Watch List". Listen to my calls. Read my e-mails. How is this going to silence me?
And if you live in California or Nevada, do us all a favor and get rid of Pelosi and Reid. A republican in their seats would go a long way in turning things around and let the rest of the peoples party know we've had enough of their complicity in the crimes supported by the Washington establishment.
Few people stand to the left of me. But I'm voting for Obama. Someone is going to have the job of president and I will still have my job to do, educating those around me to understand the history of the American experience and put perspective to today.
Posted by: geof01
| July 18, 2008 1:15 AM
"I see him as a pawn being used by many people with many unknown agendas. Anyone getting that much money has to have a LOT of weight behind him and owe an awful lot of favors."
lol At an average of $68 bucks, the donors own him?? Maybe you typed before you thought about it, or maybe you didn't think about it at all and just repeated something you've heard before about 'politicians'.
That's just silly talk.
Posted by: Alan
| July 18, 2008 1:19 AM
"At an average of $68 bucks, the donors own him??"
And that's bull Alan. If you think his campaign was financed by only by individual small donors, then your naive.
Posted by: chloe
| July 18, 2008 8:47 AM
It is the secret freemasons financing him by giving a $100.00 to millions of normal people to send in - that way they can take over the world.
Makes sense, eh?
lololololololo
Posted by: capt
| July 18, 2008 11:27 AM
No. Just creative book keeping.
lololololololo
Posted by: chloe
| July 18, 2008 11:36 AM
Post A Comment