Comments on: The Political Money Game: How much does it matter?

By: Jack Okie

Jack Okie — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:18:27 +0000

From an 1853 Charlottesville, Virginia newspaper editorial discussing the one-drop rule of Invisible blackness: “What is a Negro? White and black made a mulatoo. Mulatoo and white made a quadroon. Quadroon and white made a mustee. And by law, mustee and white made a white.”

Apparently we haven’t progressed much past this type of thinking, since Obama is as much white as black, but we continue to cast him as black.

By: Wellspring

Wellspring — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:19:25 +0000

I’ve always felt that money is a symptom of popularity, not a cause of it. Freakonomics has a great study that supports my intuition.

Chicken or egg, the bottom line is that the Republicans are demoralized and don’t yet have a strong standard-bearer. Keeping the economic and social conservatives both happy is always a balancing act, and the President hasn’t really managed it. Plus the constant negativity from the left has finally taken its toll. Finally, the republicans simply haven’t met someone who really excites them.

For all their cheering, I can’t really say the democrats are electrified yet either. Their activists want the war over now, but there are conservative democrats and independents who are really concerned with the idea of a pullout. (“When the going gets tough, the tough strategically redeploy”? Hey, that’s catchy. Or try: “Strategic redeployment is the better part of valor” as a slogan). So far, they’re trying to pull National Healthcare and the Environment as their big ideas, but the electorate simply isn’t electrified by them as anything other than Not-Republicans.

So I’m not surprised with the donation picture at the moment. The democrats are clearly winning, but there’s still a long way to go. It’s at least two, maybe three eternities until we even start counting votes in the primaries, and honestly it’s just too soon to tell who the nominees will be.

By: David

David — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:14:49 +0000

The democratic presidential hopefuls need a lot of money to overcome serious problems:

54% of potential voters hate Hilliary and I suspect that a similar pecentage isn’t sure Obama is an adult.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:13:48 +0000

Barack Obama is a serious candidate only because so many people want to prove they are not racist. Nobody would pay him any attention if he were white. Hillary Clinton plays the same role for the radical feminists. One is suppose to vote for her to show they do not fear a strong woman. Which politically correct poison do you prefer? It is both laughable and somewhat frightening that one of these two individuals might become the leader of the free world. How did we get ourselves into such a precarious position? It is obvious that the Democrats do not have even one Harry Truman among them.

By: ricpic

ricpic — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:04:01 +0000

Money means a great deal but it doesn’t mean everything. For example: Obama is outdrawing Hillary in contributions. Does it mean he’ll get the nomination? Not according to John Podhoretz. In a recent column in the NY Post, Podhoretz states that historically, both Parties are much more likely to nominate a known, rather than an unknown, quantity. That gives Hillary (even if she’s misrepresenting herself) an almost insurmountable advantage over Obama.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:06:31 +0000

The Democrats are attracting the George Soros types. These are wealthy elitists who wish to get in touch with their inner Friedrich Engels. They want to change the world to their liking. It is very fair to describe them as desiring to become benevolent dictators.