• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on Another “Morning After…
    Seagrl on Another “Morning After…
    Seagrl on Another “Morning After…
    Ga6thDem on Another “Morning After…
    William on Another “Morning After…
    Ga6thDem on Another “Morning After…
    Ga6thDem on Another “Morning After…
    William on Another “Morning After…
    Alessandro Machi on Another “Morning After…
    jmac on Another “Morning After…
    Propertius on It is Time for Drastic Ac…
    jmac on It is Time for Drastic Ac…
    James Bowater on It is Time for Drastic Ac…
    William on WORDLE!
    jmac on WORDLE!
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    January 2022
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 16, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 16, 2022 by Tony Wikrent Strategic Political Economy [Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 1-10-2022] World's greatest democracy pic.twitter.com/Hmnmhptxiv — Mary Tracy (@MaryTracy) January 9, 2022 . Heather Cox Richardson, January 14, 2022 [Letters from an American] Yesterday, by a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court […]
  • Top Posts

Obamaphiles: you’ve been had

Ever since Obama began his candidacy, the rest of us have wondered: how did a less than one term senator with virtually no qualification to be be president and no message but Change! make so much money in such a short period of time. Steve Soto at TheLeftCoaster sees an interesting correlation that many of you should stop and think about.

Before the primaries began, Obama had amassed $99 Million, almost as much as Hillary Clinton who had been amassing her warchest for years.  Where did that money come from?  Not only that but since Obama became the Presumptuous Nominee the money kind of dried up.  As Steve points out, the Obama campaign will try to pin this on Clinton and say that her supporters are holding back.  And this may very well be true.  But the decrease in funding started to happen back in March.

March? March? What happened back in March?  Oh, yes, i remember now.  Matt Yglesias, Chris Bowers, Josh Marshall and the other blogger boyz were going on and on about how it was mathematically impossible for Clinton to win.  Well, not exactly.  Without the voter suppression techniques that the Obama campaign used, it would have been very possible for her to win, but why get into that nasitiness?  The Obamaphiles don’t believe the Pure One would ever be that dishonest.  No, what Steve Soto uncovered, and what seems very likely, is that the money was directed at defeating Clinton.  It was made available for just that purpose.  Yep, thousands and thousands of maxxed out voters sending money for this one single purpose and then, just as suddenly, all drying up!

I mean, it *almost* seems like there was an influx of cash to Obama just when he needed it most with the specific goal of taking out Clinton and this influx of cash doesn’t seem to be sticking around for the General Election.  WHO would DO such a dastardly thing???  Who would deliberately fund a candidate who isn’t qualified for the least important cabinet position in the WH much less the presidency in order to knock out the strongest candidate that would go up against the Republicans in the fall?  Why, it’s almost ROVIAN in it’s simple brilliance.  It would be like having a lot of Republicans send money to the weakest Democratic candidate, reregister as Democrats or just vote for the Democrat in states where there were open primaries. I found a lot of such households in PA where the voter was just making mischief for the Democrats and never intended to vote for Obama in the fall.  LOL!  They were having a joke on us!  So much fun.

But, could it be that this is what happened with the fundraising money? That the ratfucking Republicans rigged the Democratic election by flooding the Obama campaign with cash and then beating a hasty retreat once they accomplished the dirty deed?  Hmmmm, there’s only one way to find out.  We need for Obama’s campaign to correlate contributions to party affiliation or previous contributions.  I mean, we’ve been so busy looking for Republicans among the PUMAs, maybe we’ve been looking for Republicans in all the wrong places.  Yeah!  Let’s demand that Obama release his contribution lists!  That would settle the question.  Wouldn’t he want to be rid of the taint of a Republican setup?  I mean, that would be sooo embarrassing if it turned out that he couldn’t win on his own merits and needed the help of sneaky Republicans.  it wouldn’t bode well for the GE, would it, if it turned out that much of his support was from Republicans who were just trying to game the system.

Oh, BTW, his campaign predicted a haul of $100 million in June.  He hauled in only $30 million.  What is it they say about past performance is not guarantee of future returns?