Obama is spending the $$$ to get the superdelegates
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 11:45pm.
Earlier today, Obama campaign manager sent out an email telling its supporters their strategy to win over the superdelegates:
Our work so far has taught us one important lesson: that your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool for someone who's undecided. That's true whether that undecided voter is your neighbor or a superdelegate.
The story of where you're from, what brought you into the political process, the issues that matter to you, and why you became part of this movement has the potential to inspire someone who could cast a deciding vote in this contest.
Our staff will compile stories from supporters like you and make them a key part of the conversation with superdelegates as Barack asks for their support.
Share your story to help persuade superdelegates now:
http://my.barackobama.com/superdelegates
I've received a lot of email from folks asking how best to help with the superdelegate effort, and this is it.
So the Obama campaign thinks the key to winning superdelegates is by personal appeals? Hardly.
Just the day before, the Center for Responsive Politics revealed Obama's real strategy to secure the nomination by winning over superdelegates-- cold, hard cash.
And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.
Only 12% of Clinton's currently committed superdelegates have received any campaign donations from Clinton since 2005; to Obama's 43%.
Between the two candidates, Obama is resposible for making nearly $700k of the $900k donations to super delegates.
So, the next time anyone says that Hillary is trying to "steal" the election by winning it through the superdelegates, remember this. Obama has been spending three times the amount Clinton has in winning over the superdelegates which are going to be necessary for either candidate to secure the nomination.
And, of course, Jerid
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 11:59pm.
Obama hasn't been making some outlandish offers to go along with his campaign cash, too? Right, Jerid?
And Obama may have donated more
Submitted by Jerid on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 1:27am.
But you conveniently left out the fact that Hill-dawg apparently has plenty of cash to throw to superdelegates too:
Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.
Check again, Jerid
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 1:40am.
I said of the $900k given by both candidates, Obama had given nearly $700k. By implication, that would mean that Clinton gave $200k. That's 3 to 1. I actually cited the 12% figure in your comment in the post.
Really?
Submitted by FindlayMarketGirl on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 6:10am.
I guess it's true that President Bush has made a multi-million dollar deal with the Clintons for Hillary to secure the white house for 4 years until Jeb Bush is clear to run.
Modern, please go back to Kucinich bashing
Submitted by JeanLR on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 7:49am.
This line of petty baloney is starting to clog up the server!
Seriously, 99% of voters, especially the new voters that Obama is attracting to the process are not going to be persuaded one way or another by "inside baseball" issue~
This is exactly why everyday people are attracted to the Obama phenomenon, it's about the Big Picture~
people aren't standing around the water cooler or sitting at the dinner table debating the merits of campaign funding~ they're talking about matters germaine to our lives.
Obama is making politics seem relevent to our lives, that if we do participate than we can do better than the status quo, which SUCKS.
Come on, Jean
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 9:44am.
Nice try, Jean. But the story here is after weeks of spreading B.S. about how Clinton is trying to "steal" the election by winning over the superdelegates, Obama has been spending three times the amount of money Clinton has to win over these superdelegates and over 40% of his superdelegate have been beneficiaries of his political donations.
If this story had been about Hillary, you'd be the first in line to scream about how the Clintons are trying to buy the election. So why does Obama get a pass?
Building the Party
Submitted by generica on Sat, 02/16/2008 - 9:28am.
So what you're saying is HRC took in a record amount of money for her senate campaign, spent it all on a safe seat (or all but $50M depending on which pol-gossip site you read) and couldn't be bothered to spend more than $200K to help other democrats get elected to office. Obama took in far les then her from 2005 to 2007, but still managed to contribute a huge amount to help other democrats get elected. And somehow this makes Obama wrong.... how?
These weren't bribes to individuals. We don't know about those from either candidate. These were donations to elections to help democrats take and hold seats.
Before You Go And Start Condemning Obama Here