[hyteckit]

Wow, just wow. The campaign had added 632,000 new donors in September, for a total of 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. He said the average donation was $86.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/...pr/obama_money

I guess while the McCain/Palin rallies have incited hate/anger from its conservative base, it has incited many Americans to do something about bringing change by donating to the Obama campaign. We don't need the McCain/Palin campaingn's divisive and fear tactics.

[kobi]

Just another nail in the McCain Campaign's coffin.

It couldn't happen to a better campaign.

[Dork.]

Just another nail in McCain-Feingold's coffin, also. Who would possibly accept public financing after Obama proved how much more money you can raise by rejecting it?

[besson3c]

McCain's campaign actually made more money but they just blew it all on illegal drugs.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

McCain's campaign actually made more money but they just blew it all on illegal drugs.

No, I think Cindy had refills on her prescriptions is all.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

McCain's campaign actually made more money but they just blew it all on illegal drugs.

Ahh, that explains the VP pick....

[besson3c]

It's too bad John Candy is dead and was a part of the Canadian Empire.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Just another nail in McCain-Feingold's coffin, also. Who would possibly accept public financing after Obama proved how much more money you can raise by rejecting it?

John McCain, apparently. The secret is that people have to actually like you to give you campaign contributions.

[chris v]

$80.00 of that was mine! Yee-haw!

From CNN (goddam librul media with their goddam facts!)
"632,000 new donors gave to the campaign, with the average contribution under $100. More than 3 million donors have given so far."

[turtle777]

Everything in Amaraca can be bought.

As we are witnessing, even elections.

-t

[placebo1969]

I swear I remember in past elections if Republicans raised more money than their competition, it was decried that they were "buying the election." Now that Sen. Obama is raising a ton of money, it's a good thing? How does this make sense?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Everything in Amaraca can be bought.

As we are witnessing, even elections.

-t

Americans are voting with their pocket books, donating to a candidate of their chose. Obama is giving ordinary America citizens a voice.

McCain and the RNC on the other hand are getting a large portion of their donations from large corporations and wealthy donors.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

I swear I remember in past elections if Republicans raised more money than their competition, it was decried that they were "buying the election." Now that Sen. Obama is raising a ton of money, it's a good thing? How does this make sense?

Look at where the money is coming from in each case, and the amount of individual donations. I'm not decrying either party doing whatever is within their legal means to win an election, but you have to consider the source of the funding as well as the funding itself, if you're going to gnash your teeth about campaign finance.

[placebo1969]

I didn't think I was gnashing my teeth. I've just noticed that in the past, people on the left complained of the amount of money is campaigns when the right was spending more. Now they don't have the same complaint. More of an observation than anything.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

I swear I remember in past elections if Republicans raised more money than their competition, it was decried that they were "buying the election." Now that Sen. Obama is raising a ton of money, it's a good thing? How does this make sense?

It's "buying the election" no matter how you look at it.

But I think there's something missing from the analysis, and that is that different people are buying the election. Obama is drawing from an incredibly vast number of people who donate small sums; whereas the Republican model is always to get a small number of people to to donate the maximum.

Many liberals such as myself see the latter approach in a negative light because it's arguably the least democratic. Very few people can greatly influence the election with their large contributions. Now, if George Soros wanted to drop a cool billion on the Democratic Party, then you'll certainly hear no complaints from me. But that's typically not what happens.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by chris v 

$80.00 of that was mine! Yee-haw!

From CNN (goddam librul media with their goddam facts!)
"632,000 new donors gave to the campaign, with the average contribution under $100. More than 3 million donors have given so far."

Facts do tend to have a liberal bias.