Obama's fundraisers include big fish (at least $13 million from bundlers), including Rahm's brother

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Was Gravel right?

It is disturbing how much money the Obama and Clinton campaigns are raising from fat cats who are not exactly interested in changing the status quo (these two finished 1-2 on Wall Street as well among the 18 candidates for president, with Obama actually raising about as much as 2nd place HRC and 3rd place John McCain combined). It is also interesting that Rahm Emmanuel's brother has contributed to Obama. Perhaps this is one reason why Obama is confident he will get the DLC leader's endorsement?

==WASHINGTON - Even as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has promoted a large following of small-dollar contributors representing ordinary Americans, his campaign has built an old-school political fundraising machine that relies heavily on the wealthy and the powerful, including a Chicago-based hedge fund manager who earned $1.4 billion last year.==

==The Obama campaign disclosed the names of 120 major fundraisers who had attracted at least $50,000 in contributions to Obama by June 30 through their appeals to friends, family and business associates. Together with a list released at the end of the first quarter, the campaign has identified 260 people who have raised that amount or more.==

==Though it is impossible to know exactly how much of the $58 million Obama raised during the first half of the year came by way of bundlers, those on the list would not be there if they had not raised at least $50,000. That means at least $13 million of his year-to-date total came through bundlers, and the total is probably much higher.==

==Sixty percent of the Obama campaign's funds come from people who have given at least $1,000, the kind of donors who are most often recruited by bundlers. Less than 30 percent of his contributions came from people who gave less than $200.

Clinton relies even more heavily on large-dollar donations for her campaign. Earlier this month, the New York senator identified 212 major fundraisers, which she calls HillRaisers. But she only identifies bundlers who have reached a higher threshold of contributions, $100,000.==

Read the rest at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070725obama,1,5894874.story

[pnwmom]

1. Politicians who can't fundraise also can't get elected.

I can't remember a time when the Dems were raising more money than the Repubs before a Presidential election. I think it is a sign of how low Bush has sunk his party.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Valid points

What disturbs me, though, is that these people would not be pumping money into certain campaigns if they were not comfortable with what a Clinton, Obama, Romney, or Giuliani presidency would look like.

[pnwmom]

7. There are always going to be some people who want to back winners.

And, at this point, Clinton and Obama look like winners.

And anyone with any sense -- and this includes some corporate types -- can see the disaster that the Bush presidency has been -- and wouldn't want those policies carried over into the next Administration.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. So why was McCain 3rd on Wall Street?

Why did he out-raise Romney 3-to-2 on Wall Street and narrowly beat front-runner Ghouliani? Both Ghouliani and Romney have a far greater chance of winning than McCain, who is the 4th most likely Republican to win. Why did Obama trounce the Democratic front-runner on Wall Street? Clearly HRC is a better bet for winning right now. The gaps are also telling. HRC raised less than 3/5 what Obama did, Edwards raised 1/17th of Obama's Wall Street total. On the Republican side the top two Republicans were in a dead heat while Romney raised 2/3 what McCain and Ghouliani raised. Backing a winning horse is a factor but hardly a dispositive factor imo.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Wall Street isn't one coherent entity

The contributions from Wall Street are coming from thousands of employees, each with their own different reasons for donating to different candidates.

Believe it or not, some donate to Democrats simply because they believe it's the right thing to do. They may not be the majority, but they do exist. Jon Corzine is a great example of this.

Additionally, all of this money in politics is due to a system that was crated long before any of these candidates decided to run for President. The system, IMO, is far more of a problem than any of the candidates. John Edwards getting less money than Hillary and Obama from Wall Street doesn't convince me that he's going to change the system any more than Hillary or Obama will. If he were offering a comprehensive campaign finance reform plan that was better than what Hillary or Obama was proposing, then I might have some serious interest in his candidacy. As far as I know, he is not.

One positive thing I can say about all of the Democrats is that they will at least take steps in the right direction to change the system, where as Republicans will do whatever they can to go backwards. The recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on 527's is great evidence of this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Progressives have long had a position on Wall Street influence until BO became their darling

The issue is not so much money in politics but economic policy. Who do you think Wall Street would prefer? Four years of Bill Clinton or four years of Ted Kennedy?

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Most of them would prefer four years of Bill Clinton

But all of the top three candidates are closer to Bill Clinton in their views than to Ted Kennedy.

[pnwmom]

18. Yes indeed. There is not a uniformity of opinion on Wall Street.

Or in any other walk of life.

There are progressives and liberals even among the very wealthy, people who would actually rather tax themselves more (and their friends), in order to live in a better country. I think that people here forget that sometimes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. How often has Wall Street ever backed Democrats before the DLC era?

It is amazing how now that Obama is Wall Street's darling there are some progressives who know view the ultimate embodiment of the status quo as a progressive bastion thirsting for real change. :)

[pnwmom]

24. How often has a President sunk this low in public opinion? People hate him.

Bush's record makes practically everyone yearn for a real change. I think the percent that now support the neocon agenda has probably shrunk to the single digits, even on Wall Street.

People who work on Wall Street are New Yorkers, by the way. Lots of them have always supported Democrats and progressive liberal goals. (I had a sister that used to work on Wall Street, and she had plenty of liberal friends there.)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Wall Street is the ultimate embodiement of the status quo. They have never wanted real change

It is amazing how much progressive thinking is revised because of Obama (surely this fact was not lost on Wall Street. Obama is a far more effective salesman for Rubin-style economic policies than HRC). Now Wall Street wants to shake up the establishment?

Nixon sunk this low in public opinion. Did Wall Street suddenly begin to support Democrats? Wall Street only likes certain type of Democrats. For all the complaining about the DLC from BO supporters one thing that has conveniently being airbrushed from DLC history ever since the Obama/Wall Street news broke is that being corporate friendly was one of the fundamental tenets of the DLC's creation and strategy. Obama and HRC are just cashing in on this.

==

People who work on Wall Street are New Yorkers, by the way. Lots of them have always supported Democrats and progressive liberal goals==

Yes, and the vast majority of them have been economic conservatives interested in preserving the economics status quo. This was true in 1920. It was true in 1940. It was true in 1955. It was true in 1968. It was true in 1980. It was true in 1989. It is just as true in 2007.

[pnwmom]

31. You have a lot of opinions but only impressions to back them up.

And my impressions are different.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Sure, but thanks for sharing them. After all, this is a discussion board

:toast:

[pnwmom]

34. Back at you!

:toast:

[pnwmom]

23. Obama looks like a good bet to lots of people, including me.

Hillary is the current front runner, but in how many elections have we seen the early front runner fall? Bill Clinton was a huge longshot in this point of his first race.

Just because many on Wall Street back a certain candidate doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean a candidate is tainted. There are and have always been lots of wealthy Democrats, who still support Democratic goals and ideals, including taxing themselves at higher rates for the greater good. Martha Stewart, for example, had given more than $200,000 to various Democratic causes in the years before her trial and conviction. (Which I'm sure had a great deal to do with her selective prosecution and imprisonment.) Warren Buffett is a prominent advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy, including higher estate taxes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Oh, he definitely is a good bet for Wall Street. HRC, though is the best bet for winning

;)

==Hillary is the current front runner, but in how many elections have we seen the early front runner fall? ==

True, but HRC has a massive lead, unlike many other past front-runners. The spin from Team Obama ever since news of his Wall Street success broke was that Wall Street was simply betting on a winner. HRC proves that wrong. However, what you say is what Team Obama says when the fact HRC is the frontrunner is mentioned, they claim Obama is as or more likely to win than HRC (if he is as likely to win what explains him raising 43% more than HRC on Wall Street?). The problem is there is a candidate named John Edwards who is much closer to Obama, especially in the early states, than Obama is to HRC. Edwards overtaking Obama is far more likely than Obama overhauling HRC this year. If it is just about hedging bets surely Edwards would not have raised a measly $40,000 on Wall Street, which lagged well behind the field.

You are right. There are some progressives on Wall Street. However--as progressives have long said for decades--Wall Street has conservative economic views and wants to preserve the status quo. No magic Democrat with a slick marketing team changes that underlying fact.

I don't think Wall Street support automatically taints a candidate. It is just very telling as to what kind of (pro-corporate. Surely no one believes Wall Street would back anyone who is not pro-corporate...) president a candidate will be if he or she wins. It should be one factor in evaluating a candidate.

[TeamJordan23]

2. Rahm will endorse Hillary. mark my word. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. What makes you so confident of that?

Obama is confident that Rahm will endorse him and the fact that Rahm's brother supports Obama may be a signal of where Rahm's allegiance lies.

[sandnsea]

6. Oh please

What in the world gives you that idea? The only reason Rahm would endorse Obama is if Hillary told him to. Where do you get these ideas?

Maybe Rahm's brother is raising money because of Illinois politics and nothing more.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Obama himself gives me that idea

=="Everybody knows I worked for the Clintons. I'm very close to the Clintons. And I'm very close to Barack. Let's be honest, does anybody want to pick among friends? It's a human thing, not a political thing," Emanuel said.

He added that he hoped to delay the inevitable choice

"At some point, if I have to make a decision, I will. But I prefer, you know, they've got to go on and develop their campaigns," he said.

Obama, for his part, has had little to say.

Asked about Emanuel's posture at a recent Tribune editorial board meeting, Obama smiled.

"Rahm knows the right thing to do," he said.==

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701190131jan19,1,2183324.story

[sandnsea]

11. Obama has had little to say

How do you translate that into a clue?? You're just making shit up to smear Obama again. Pathetic.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Um...a smile does not indicate confidence in your universe?

The fact that Rahm--according to Rahm himself--is close to Barack and considering endorsing him, which Obama himself calls "the right thing to do" for Rahm while grinning a "smear"? Ah, the paranoia! :rofl:

[rinsd]

25. The ALL MIGHTY CLINTONS!

The only reason Rahm would endorse Obama is if Hillary told him to

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. rinsd, you are an astute political observer

Would you say, based on what I posted about Obama, that he is at least fairly confident that Rahm will endorse him?

[rinsd]

30. Well Rahm's a fellow Illini, if he was for Hillary I think he would have already announced it.

That doesn't mean he won't endorse Hillary. After all they have strong political ties but yeah there's certainly a chance Rahm will endorse Obama.

[sandnsea]

5. Like Edwards' attorney bundlers?

Maybe you aren't aware of where Edwards had been getting his money until everybody bailed on him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Sure, but there is a difference in degree

Edwards is raising only a fraction of the fat cat money HRC, BO, Romney, and Ghouliani are. For instance, on Wall Street Obama beat him 17-to-1, HRC 10-to-1, Ghoul/McCain 8-to-1, and Romney nearly 6-to-1.

If you have any details on Edwards' bundlers please let us know. It is good to know who is financing candidates in the spirit of open government and an open politics.

[sandnsea]

12. 2003 and his Senate race

Maybe you don't think people will remember that the man ran for office before this year.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=edwards+senate+bundlers&btnG=Google+Search

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Thanks for sharing. Any info on 2007, since it is 2007?

We need to know who is financing our candidates today.

[Ethelk2044]

15. There is no difference.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. There is no difference between raising more than the 2nd and 3rd place Wall Street candidates...

...combined and raising 1/17th of what corporate America's favorite raised? Surely you jest.

[Ethelk2044]

14. No Gravel was not right.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Why not? nt

[wyldwolf]

26. uh! Silly! Because Ethelk2044 says so.

[rinsd]

27. I thought the Obama campaign was going for transparency with bundlers?

I'll hold my fire for now on this.