Obama tops $30 million in second quarter
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Reports: A source close to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says his presidential campaign raised more than $30 million during the second quarter, which ended yesterday.
That figure tops Obama’s haul during the first quarter of the year, when he reported raising $25.8 million.
Official figures have not yet been released by Obama’s rivals for the Democratic nomination, although the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., had said it expected to raise about $27 million during the quarter, and the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., had publicly set a goal of $9 million.
Email
Rick Santorum Encircled in Prayer
Boehner Slams Obama on Contraception Controversy
Yes, there may a real alternative to Hillary and Bill Clinton emerge yet. If this is true it is definitely good news for the country. We need to have new not old divised leaders return. No Dynasty for our America. You go “O”, good job.
Posted by: murl41 | July 1, 2007, 8:07 am 8:07 am
A Republican will never get elected in the current climate. The real race for the presidency is between Hillary and Obama. If you’re sick of partisan politics throw your support to Obama. The baby boom generation split in the sixties and they’ve been at each other’s throats ever since. Time for a new generations. Go O!
Posted by: matt mullen | July 1, 2007, 9:18 am 9:18 am
Posted by: matt mullen | Jul 1, 2007 9:18:01 AM
Hey Matt, us BABY BOOMERS VOTE. We are not at each others throats and just like the ’60′s we are fighting for the future of this country for our kids and grandkids. I would suggest you Obama supporters should concentrate on a vision , which “hope” is really getting old and has no substance behind it.
By the way I am not for any of the top 3.
Posted by: fedup | July 1, 2007, 10:17 am 10:17 am
Considering it’s Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton adminstration official, can his “sources” be trusted?
Posted by: vamonticello | July 1, 2007, 10:34 am 10:34 am
Praise Him, Praise Him all you little lib-ruls. I wonder why a picture of Obama isn’t showing his big ears or maybe with a scowl or smirk on his face taken at just the right time… That is how ABC News would portray him if he were a Republican. Or maybe ABC could find a 25 year old picture of him with his hands around a dogs neck and say it was cruelty for 5 days straight on their headlines. Gasp!
Posted by: Bill | July 1, 2007, 10:58 am 10:58 am
How much of Obama’s $$ is Republican Mischief$$$-just to weaken Clinton?
Posted by: CLK | July 1, 2007, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Tumbleweed, check your facts. That $30 million was raised from well over 250,000 individual donors. That means that the average donation was under $120 … not the stuff of millionaires.
Posted by: Chris | July 1, 2007, 11:11 am 11:11 am
Barack does not accept money from Lobbyist or special interest groups. He’s the real deal.
Obama/Clark in ’08
Posted by: Sam | July 1, 2007, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Praise Him, Praise Him all you little lib-ruls. I wonder why a picture of Obama isn’t showing his big ears or maybe with a scowl or smirk on his face taken at just the right time… That is how ABC News would portray him if he were a Republican. Or maybe ABC could find a 25 year old picture of him with his hands around a dogs neck and say it was cruelty for 5 days straight on their headlines. Gasp!
Posted by: Bill | Jul 1, 2007 10:58:52 AM
—-
Let’s see: You have a guy who used to strap dogs to his car roof; another guy who used to pretend to adopt cats so he could do experiments on them; and a third who used to blow up frogs for fun.
Hey, it’s not our fault that the Republics are a party of sadists.
Posted by: BB | July 1, 2007, 11:21 am 11:21 am
I don’t get that whole ABC liberal bias nonsense. In my city, as well as cities around the country, our ABC affiliate produces the FOX affiliate’s newscast.
Posted by: JR | July 1, 2007, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Obama/Dodd ’08
Posted by: Ron | July 1, 2007, 11:34 am 11:34 am
So when people say Obama has no plan does that mean they were just too lazy to go read his plans that are laid out for you on numerous sites. Read his senate floor transcripts and look at his campaign site and supporting sites don’t just complain that you cant figure out his plan because he didn’t tell it to you on TV or in a commercial. Do some educational research of your own. Our generation knows how to use the internet for our educational benefit. Hope is getting old? Yeah I lost hope in baby boomers doing anything good for my generation a while ago. I am looking forward to earning less than my parents, global warming, cancerous food supplies, a decreased quality of life, freedom, security and education for my peers and more recently a supreme court that wants to oppress me more than protect me as a women and a student. Yeay thanks for caring so much and accomplishing your vision! Obama is the best change possible out of the democratic candidates with a chance. Hillary is the same old same old and her foreign policy does not reflect the world view diplomacy that Obama grew up surrounded by. The republican candidates all have voting records that make me cringe. Obama can work with both sides of the isle and the generation becoming aware of their role in this society want his ideas to have the power and implementation that a presidency can bring. I envision that and I hope for that. Don’t tell me hope is dead, that’s a problem your generation can keep to its self. We need hope.
Posted by: ber | July 1, 2007, 11:41 am 11:41 am
I don’t get that whole ABC liberal bias nonsense. In my city, as well as cities around the country, our ABC affiliate produces the FOX affiliate’s newscast.
Posted by: JR | Jul 1, 2007 11:33:41 AM
—-
ABC was also the network that ran the movie showing the anti-Clinton version of 9/11, which was produced by a Wingnut who got funding from various conservative sources.
The Republics have been “playing the refs” for years in an attempt to manipulate the media. And, to a large extent, it’s worked.
There was never any justification behind the “liberal media” charge in the first place, but it’s downright ridiculous now that the Republics have succeeded in making the media a tool for Corporate America.
Posted by: BB | July 1, 2007, 11:41 am 11:41 am
I believe that liberals are more racists than conservatives. There is no reason why Obama shouldn’t be ahead of Hillary. Hillary is ahead in the polls not because of her accomplishments but because of Bill’s. I support Obama because the baby boomer’s time has passed. Its time to pass the torch to the younger generation. With all of the incompentence in the government these days having a impressive resume doesn’t mean a thing. Vote Obama!
Posted by: Lisa Hampton | July 1, 2007, 11:43 am 11:43 am
anyone but another Clinton
Posted by: BillW | July 1, 2007, 11:51 am 11:51 am
Fundraising is the only Poll that counts.
Barack doesn’t “owe” anyone because most were small donations from concerned people (I am 51, not a youngster, and I follow all the polls that show how unpopular Hillary is outside the Dem. base.).
Please report the funds raised FOR Q2, not just the total. Hillary only raise 19 M for Q1, not the 26 M the media continues to report. Barack had 30% more at 25 M. for Q2.
Please, someone report what would happen if Al Gore endorses Obama? It is clear to me that Gore, Bloomberg and Nader are keeping options open only if Hillary wins. If Barack wins its clear sailing to victory – Also consider what if Barack chooses Joe Biden for VP to cover his main weakness???
PS Obama won the debates and online polls confirm this. Its media types and Dem. Pundits afraid of the Clintons and Repub. who want to face Hillary who say otherwise.
Posted by: Dr. Gerald Williams | July 1, 2007, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Obama was born in 1961, so that means
that he’s also a Baby Boomer.
Posted by: Molly | July 1, 2007, 11:57 am 11:57 am
Barack is the real deal, and the ideal candidate for this time. There’s a Republican representative in Illinois who is getting in trouble with his party for supporting Obama. He was impressed with Barack’s bipartisanship.
Obama/Warner 2008
Posted by: Bill | July 1, 2007, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
And when the baby boomer age ended in 65 you think his ideology at the age of 4 was cemented? The fedup boomer said they have been fighting for the younger generations future but it doesn’t seam to have produced a good outcome for them. Time for a new way of thinking.
Posted by: jessica | July 1, 2007, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Hey people…no more choosing the “Rich” to run our country…We need to start picking from the ranks of our country. A “Rich” man has no Idea how it feels to be poor, to need, or to want. The rich are unaware of what it feels like to be fed with a wooden spoon, and having to eat cup-a-noodle soup for dinner. A “Rich” man is fed with a silver spoon, and he eats the very best of foods. Therefore, I suggest, let’s start choosing our President, and Vice President mentally at the same time. Ask ourselves, what persons would be best for our White house, and our country? I say, with great respect to all, Obama/Edwards in whatever order…he he! I say support them both for the best outcome. May God bless us all…Peace my Sisters and Brothers…keep in mind we are all God’s children. Have we learned from our lessons yet?
If you need a large dose of what American can be, and is? Please take a little time to listen to Dr. Martin L. King…I’ve Been to The Mountain Top” What did he mean about the “Promise Land?” Where is that land? Who makes it to the Promise Land.?
Dr. Martin L. King Jr. “I’ve Been to The Mountain Top.”
Posted by: Elijah | July 1, 2007, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
Q2 Fundraising So Far
It is about where we thought. A …
Posted by: Election Geek | July 1, 2007, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
I think part of this is the established Clinton people trying to make Obama the “establishment” canidate so she will be able to blur the lines. The lines of who she gets her money from, and how she championed the war in Iraq as well as the Saddam/9/11 non connection. We need people to make the right decisions at the right time not, if I knew then what I know now. There are many of us out here who knew then what she didn’t know then or apparently still doesn’t know now. I am all for skepticism of EVERY canidate but calling names and offering no substance does not help any of us raise our country to our supposed ideals.
Posted by: J.Johnson | July 1, 2007, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
Obama was born in 1961, so that means
that he’s also a Baby Boomer.
Posted by: Molly | Jul 1, 2007 11:57:10 AM
—-
You might be technically correct, but you’re culturally wrong.
Those born in 1961 were not particularly aware of Viet Nam, the Kennedy Assasinations, the Beatles, Woodstock, 68 riots and all the rest, except from being hammered about it in the mass media’s “anniversary” reports.
Rather, those born between ’61 to ’65 were more or less left with the refuse of the Boomers. (The age group was originally described in a book called “Generation X,” before that term was appropriated by the Boomer’s kids.)
Posted by: Ron | July 1, 2007, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
i like obabma, too, but he has very little experience…and keep in mind that every time they do a poll, at least 25% of the populace says they would NEVER vote for a black person. (and i hate to say this, but if the poll is at 25% i’d bet it’s really closer to 40%.)
Posted by: Gene | July 1, 2007, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Okay, Obama. Why is his middle name Husain? Answer: his father was islamic and his conversion to christianity is in question. Put his first and current church affiliation: The minister is a buddy of the Libyan Dictator and has been an honorer visitor to that dictators palace against American Law before the terrorism lable was removed and he regularly preaches anti jewish, and anti white and anti christian messages. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT WHO HATES THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE US, Brittain, and Israel ever elected. Wake up America. We would not put up with any right wing antiblack or Nazi past, or Jim Jones Cultism…why give a pass to Husein?
Posted by: LibSlayer | July 1, 2007, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Ok, here’s my plan:
Al Gore, who endorsed Howard Dean for President in 2004 says he has no compelling reason to run for President, but I think he does. He obviously thought that Howard Dean’s place was in the White House. Yet Dean has promised not to run for President in 2008.
However, and work with me here, Dean never said he wouldn’t run for VICE President. So clearly the best way to elevate Howard Dean to the Vice Presidency is if Al Gore agreed to be Dean’s running mate.
This would rectify two gross political injustices in just one election cycle, leaving the White House to Dean in Twenty Sixteen.
You want the two most qualified people running this country? It doesn’t take a street musician to figure it out.
Gore/Dean 08
Posted by: Subway Serenade | July 1, 2007, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
Be very careful everyone if Obama gets in…he will have alot of “favors” to return and the country will not be on an upswing for a very long time. Sure, the Clintons have their “issues” but they are years ahead of Obama in cultivating international relationships that we so desperatley need to fox.
Posted by: ellen | July 1, 2007, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
Actually, Bill W, HRC is unpopular WITH the Dem base. She’s a center-right politician using corporate money to pay DC advisors for bad advise. If you vesit lefty blogs, like dailykos.com, you’ll see most lefties will show up and vote for HRC, but will work their asses off for Obama or Gore (if he runs). She’s most lefties’ 4th/5th choice.
Posted by: Nacho Momma | July 1, 2007, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
What is this that Baby Boomers are all for Hillary? I can’t stand her.
I am appalled at global warming, Big Pharma, and business, which does not obey the laws that already exist regarding illegals.
The Supreme Court is something else to consider… it is scary what is happening. Campaign financing reform we need more of… not less of. Guess only millionaires have freedom of speech.
Thus far, I’d vote for Obama. HIllary is bought and paid for by Big Pharma and others (she has the most donations from lobbyists) and yeah… the Republicans have nobody I’d consider thus far.
Oh, and Ralph Nader? Can’t believe that egotistical nutball is going to run again. He has totally tarnished the consumer legacy he had.
Posted by: Bun | July 1, 2007, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
I don’t understand all this “anybody but Clinton” stuff. She is intelligent, well-spoken, and has clear thoughts about what she would do for America. I think it would be great to have a female president, considering all the trouble that testosterone-laden machismo has gotten us into in the recentand not-so recent past. Before you judge her, just listen to her. Read some on her website. Listen to some of her policy statements and speeches. Go Obama- you’ll make a terrific VICE-president.
Posted by: Docmark | July 1, 2007, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Would like to see Obama/Clark.
Posted by: Earvolution | July 1, 2007, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Gene, Please get your facts straight. The percentage is ONLY 5% (so 5% of all Americans wwouldnt vote for a black person). 7% said that they wouldnt vote for a Jew. And about 24% said that they wouldnt vote for a Mormon. Besides that, Barack Obama is half white and half black.
Posted by: DNC | July 1, 2007, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
Hillary comment about HIV during the past debate was a shameful at best. The first aid victims were the guy white communities and the white women should have been a victime of HIV if they were not careful to their life. What does to do with the white poeple or Federal Gov’t about spreading HIV in the black communities? Why is the black women are a victime Of HIV? Does Hillary think the spread of HIV in black communities are responsible by the Fed. Gov’t? HIV can hit anyone so long he or she is not very careful his/her sexual activities. No one infected HIV intentionaly to any group.
Hillary is the most shameful and lier who can say and do anything to a certain group to gain to her advantage at anytime.
If Hillary was very concerned about black people why she did not go to Rwanda when she was in the white house when about a million people killed? When she send all her available mighty arm to Kosovo to save people had the same problem as Rwanda? Hillary and Bill are the most recist but phony manupulator people ever seen.
If Hillary was real concern about minority people, why she made $6 million dollars outsourcing their real jobs to India? Why she did not answer when she was asked job resourcing?
Posted by: Lee kim | July 1, 2007, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
THIS WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT WHO HATES THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE US, Brittain, and Israel ever elected. Wake up America.
Posted by: BB | July 1, 2007, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
Correction. 1:00:22 meant for DNC
Posted by: V | July 1, 2007, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
hillary can win the primary but she’ll lose the general election.
obama can lose the primary but will win the general election
Posted by: jason | July 1, 2007, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
the real race for president is between clinton and obama? a republican can’t win? if i were a foolish liberal, like many of you, i would climb down off my high horse and check those swing state numbers again. forget that rudy wins the majority of national polls, giuliani is also ahead in almost every important swing state against a democrat. pitted against clinton or obama, rudy is up in nj and florida big, up in PA and ohio, and leading in mich. and conn., and is within striking distance in cali. and ny. if i were a liberal i would focus less on when and how hillary will beat obama, because she will, and more on how to help some ‘suthernah’ like farmer fred get the nomination, because if rudy gets it, the dems are in trouble.
Posted by: matt | July 1, 2007, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
there must be a reason why there have only been two senators in the past 100 years voted in a president.
that’s because senators are incredibly unqualified because the senate does nothing os any consequence.
if any senator dem/repub attempted the white house they would be so overwhelmed it might take them two years to recover from the shock.
first statement will be the standard:
“i had no idea it was this bad”.
plus none of the candidates are very smart.
it used to said that the senate is where presidential ambitions go to die.
the obama/clinton/thompson/gingrich are all media creations from CNN/NBC/CBS.
if dems want to win they will have to nominate al gore/richardson.
if repubs want to lose nominate guiliani.
obama: qualified for senate job? no clue he hasn’t been there long enough.
what has he ever run? a voting drive.
how will he run the pentagon? or food stamps?
thompson: he’s a quitter.
clinton: no experience doing anything but arguing before the mrdia that bill’s an innocent man. oh yesh and being on the wal-mart board of directors and fixing edd-jooh-kay-shun in arkansas. that worled well.
Posted by: bigdawg169 | July 1, 2007, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
OBAMA is reaching out to those who have historically felt underrepresented, ignored or not interested in more of the same candidates who promise and don’t deliver. He is raising piles of money from individual donors putting their money where they feel inspired by a real possibility for change, and for a person they trust and in whom they recognize an inate wisdom.
Posted by: John McD | July 1, 2007, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
LibSlayer, you are such a hatemonger resorting to a scare tactic.This might work among other hatemongers, but not with everyone in our country. The good news (bad news for you) is that most Americans are open minded, and will not fall for such idiotic characterizations. You can debate about a presidential candidate’s credentials rather than his/her name and outright lies. BTW, Obama has everythig it takes to be a great US President! Maybe that’s what knocks a daylight out some bigots.
Posted by: plyjoe | July 1, 2007, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
all of the mainstream candidates are media creations.
these are the players the media has set up for the foolish citizens.
none of these candiates have any credentials. what have any of them ever acomplished?
that really is the question. most have been very nice to “WOLF BLITZER”. why? because he produces/directs this puppet show. a TWO year campaign. think we need to start looking at ’12 elections.
appooint blitzer and skip the elections.
doesn’t make any difference who wins.
should have a contest with testing. which candidate is the dumbest?
Posted by: bigdawg169 | July 1, 2007, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Personally, I’m really impressed on both Obama’s and Hillary’s stand on the issues….oh, wait…no one knows how they really stand on anything. Just stick your finger up in the wind and see which way you should stand…. that’s leadership. The country’s screwed with either of them.
Posted by: momma | July 1, 2007, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Obama is the best chance we have for change. The CLintons promised it in 1992 and they became a big money raising machine – nothing more. Time to drop Big Mama and Bubba. Read the Obama vote record – it is astounding and honest. For a change, it is nice to have someone who stands by their votes. Go Barrack!
Posted by: PieBaby | July 1, 2007, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
There are only three headaches for Americans these days: Osama, Obama, and Chelsea’s mama.
Posted by: Pixie | July 1, 2007, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
Al’s full of hot air…wondered how long it would take the REAL scientific community to speak up.
Posted by: momma | July 1, 2007, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
Rassmussen cites Edwards as the one with the most either Dem or Rep who would vote FOR him compared with those who would vote AGAINST him. Obama and Clinton will have to really do a lot of convincing if they are going to overcome those who will vote against them, even with a crowd supporting them now.
Have you looked at the Republican candidates? If there is a slight chance the AGAINST will prevent a Dem from getting back into the White House, I’d say your best bet is Edwards. We don’t want to lose this one.
Also, what’s up with the Clinton’s support from Rupert Murdock?
Posted by: JoCr | July 1, 2007, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
I think Obama’s source of all this money is people that are mad about Hillary’s vote on the war. Theyre the left wing of the democratic party. So imo its more about being anti-Hillary than it is pro-Obama.
Posted by: Jonesy | July 1, 2007, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
what would johnny reid edwards, the trial lawyer who channels dead babies back to life do with the security situation? sue the terrorists? or be like bush and get them jobs at airports.
edwards entire life has been a hoax and what is with that elizabeth? is she running or him? where is he? out buying some more workshirts?
edwards is a very soft man who got one term in the senate as a quirk.
i wanted to go visit his 102 acre estate with the 30K sq ft house but he has gestapo and gun turrets set up on the perimeter.
edwards should run for county commissioner maybe get a little experience. come back in 20 years for assistant senator.
he offers nothing. don’t forget he avoided $600K in MHI taxes by setting up an “S” corp for himself. just like the poor peoples fund he is using right now to finance his presidential campaign. what’s he running for? president of the local chamber of commerce?
Posted by: bigdawg169 | July 1, 2007, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
Unbelievable that most of you can only recite soundbites regardless of who you support. Has anyone considered listening to what each candidate has to say… a bit of their actual biographies and accomplishments… all without anything to identify the candidate? I would be willing to bet there would be more than a few surprises and the excercise might actually open your minds to alternate candidates and alternative perspectives.
Rudy is too liberal for the right wing base… It will be quite surprising if he pulls out the nomination (I could live with Rudy as President… I think) and Hillary on the other hand has the advantage that the rest of the world already likes and respects her…. which will help to mend a fence or two. She is on a first name basis with many world leaders and if you would do your research has been politically active since college (I could live with her presidency too)… and for Obama. Does he have the life experiences necessary or is he just a pretty face with youth on his side… Being youthful, whether or not there is substantial well-rounded experience with no domestic or foreign policy is riskier… we cannot afford to spend the first couple years of the next term learning the ropes of the presidency and of diplomacy. “W” all but destroyed that luxury for whomever gets sworn in on January 20, 2008. Then there is Joe Biden….. puzzled why he is so low in the polls.
Time for everyone to check your biases at the door and do your homework. We need the populace to listen to the facts, make an informed choice and come to consensus…
Posted by: a_little-Liberal_in_NY | July 1, 2007, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
Obama isn’t old enough or experienced enough to raise the money he is raising or run the campaign – so who are his handlers? They are the ones who will tell him who his cabinet should be and what his policies should be. So who are his handlers? At least with Hillary you know it’s Bill. Is it possible that with Obama it’s Bill. Hillary/Obama 2008 followed by Hillary/Obama 2012 followed by Obama/? 2016 is the target.
Posted by: RIQ | July 1, 2007, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
I was watching the Sunday talking heads today, and they all were claiming Hillary will win and Hillary was the best and Hillary this and Hillary that. Stephanopoulis, in trying to contrast Hillary and Obama, showed both candidates responding to a question regarding how best to tackle AIDS in the black community. Obama responded by pointing out personal responsibility, poverty and crime, education needs and overall lack of leadership within the community. Hillary’s response was to play the race card by saying the country would be outraged if the AIDS problem was affecting white women the same way. Stephanopoulis then proclaimed Hillary the winner in that exchange. WOW. Someone tell me how Hillary’s response actually dealt with the question.
Let the pundits continue to shove Hillary down our throats…real America is following Obama.
Posted by: Juanito | July 1, 2007, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Obama is a baby boomer. He’s in the same generation as Hillary albeit near the tail end. If he can’t be truthful over something so minor as this, he doesn’t deserve to be president.
For those here who claim he’s not a baby boomer because he wasn’t aware of Vietnam, Kennedy’s assassination, etc. at a young age, geez what utter ignorance you have. Go back to junior high and retake American history. This generation was given its name because of the spike in births following World War II.
Those born towards the tail end, and not just during the years you conveniently lobbed off, are quite different from those born near the front end. When Kennedy was assassinated, a 5 to 8 year old at the time was hardly any more aware of it than Obama was at age 4. They wouldn’t have gone to Woodstock unless someone much older brought them. They may have liked Beatles songs because older siblings played it but as with Obama wouldn’t relate to things like Vietnam until much older. Being aware of key events though was not the criteria used for this grouping.
Posted by: Mike W | July 1, 2007, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
>>>Stephanopoulis then proclaimed Hillary the winner in
>>>that exchange. WOW. Someone tell me how Hillary’s response
>>>actually dealt with the question.on.
The last debate was focused towards African Americans. More arrived supporting Obama but walked away in Hillary’s camp. This doesn’t mean they’re ready to vote for her, but that he disappointed.
Obama’s response to that particular question was safe and comes off as canned. Hers on the other hit deep down inside many of the attendees. He didn’t connect with them while she did.
Her response there though is dead right. When it comes to researching and combating diseases, most money goes towards those effecting non-gay white men, those effecting white women are a distant second, and those effecting minorities and other groups are much further down. She wasn’t playing the race card just pointing out reality. Check it out and see for yourself.
Posted by: Mike W | July 1, 2007, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
There’s a FRed Storm Rising! Border Security is National Security!
Posted by: Westerberg | July 1, 2007, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
Dosen’t the fact that Obama, along with his political patron Tony Resko, screwed hundreds of poor black people out of their homes in Chicago bother you. Or that he gained financialy because of it. Just as he is in the US Senate he was a back bencher in the Illinis Senate just lining his own pockets. This man is truely an empty suit.
Posted by: Terry | July 1, 2007, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
From the posts it appears that the consensus is Fred and Rudy or Rudy and Fred in the WH. The dems and some of the Republican candidates seem to be trolls.
Posted by: Richard | July 1, 2007, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Cha-ching!
From Political Radar:
ABC News George Stephanopoulos Reports: A source close to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says his presidential campaign raised more than $30 million during the second quarter, which ended yesterday.
That figure tops Obama’…
Posted by: Bloggernista | July 1, 2007, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
comment “rest of the world likes and respects her”. what world would that be? hillaryland.
whoa. first name basis with world leaders?
which ones would those be?
the ones that count?
for this first two years, this current crop of candaidates would be 100% lost.
none could stand up to putin or chinese.
and when it comes to middle east or any crises, forget about it.
they are all UNQUALIFIED.
most of their resumes come from HOAX, INC.
Posted by: bigdawg169 | July 1, 2007, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Bigdawg169…. you sound as open-minded as I would have expected.. at least you are consistent in your posts.
So, who do you think has the “credentials” to be President?
Seems to me that the Constitution only requires that you be a minimum of 35 years old and born in the USA.
Posted by: a_little-Liberal_in_NY | July 1, 2007, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
wolf blitzer the self appointed manager of everyone’s campaign.
let’s see what he’s got.
he got all the answers.
all wolf needs now are the questions.
govern, wolf, govern!
if the dems want to win use gore/richardson.
if the repubs want to win give their contributions to hillary. repubs could then run, oh say. ronald reagan III an imaginary candidate. and WIN!
if gore hasn’t burned too many bridges with his global (F)arming tirades.
a lot of voters will feel sorry for gore over 2000 and he may get a lot of unexpected votes.
i once lived in IL and saw obama as a backbencher in IL senate operate.
all he ever talked about was abortion. which should be a sore point with blacks, since they have about 30% of the abortions and have aborted themselves into a secondary minority through unfettered abortions.
i would advance a very good theory.
with the 35 years and born in USA.
let’s go directly to a lottery for president.
we might even get a better choice.
certainly could not do any worse than the bush-child.
Posted by: bigdawg169 | July 1, 2007, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm
Bigdawg169, It is frightening to think you actually participate in the process and vote… I haven’t yet seen one original thought from you… except maybe your lottery idea!!!
Don’t take everything the pundits say (Blitzer included) as absolute fact… they are paid for their opinions not whether or not what they say is true and accurate.
Posted by: a_little-Liberal_in_NY | July 1, 2007, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
I do not want you to agree with me, just think for yourself and not form your entire opinion on a soundbite or blog entry by anyone… me included
can’t comment on Edward’s taxes… I would have to research your statement to verify its validity.
Posted by: a_little-Liberal_in_NY | July 1, 2007, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
New idea for a tv show:
Who wants to be the republican presidential candidate? Its on Fox.
Posted by: JC | July 1, 2007, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm
Who said Obama owes favors ? His money was from the most small donors ever in history for a 2nd quarter reporting period. He takes no money from PAC’s nor lobbyists. He never worked for the board of Wall Mart or Haliburton or Exxon or any big corporation.
Who said Obama’s resume is thin ? His 10.5 years as senator are some of the most highly effective problem solving in modern politics. He listens to all sides respectfully and has passed bills unanimously. He can beat polarization and reduce the divisions in our country.
.
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2007, 5:14 am 5:14 am