by John McCormick
Sequels are tough to pull off, unless perhaps if you are filming the Star Wars or Godfather series.
But after winning generally positive reviews -- and raking in a bunch of money as part of the effort -- Sen. Barack Obama is going to give his dinner-with-the-candidate promotion another run.
Those who donate as little as $5 to his campaign by 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 31 will have a chance to win a dinner with the Illinois Democrat and three other supporters at a location not yet announced.
Obama first used this fundraising gimmick in early June. And while it is hard to draw a clear correlation with limited public data, some of his top fundraising days during the second quarter fell during that promotion.
"Make a small donation and you could have the kind of dinner with Barack that other politicians reserve for the wealthy elite," Campaign Manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters Thursday afternoon.
Of course, as a Tribune story Thursday pointed out, Obama has had plenty of appetizers, dinners and drinks with big-dollar donors, as he amassed an impressive collection of bundlers in 26 states and the District of Columbia who have helped him pull in $58 million already this year.
After the first such dinner on July 10, the campaign posted a roughly 10-minute video that included excerpts of the dinner conversation. It was an interesting view of the kind of policy filled chitchat Obama often has with regular folk on the campaign trail.
Obama's media shop has refused to say how many people entered the last contest, except to say it was "thousands."
Plouffe said the candidate was eager to do another dinner with supporters.
"No one enjoyed it more than Barack," Plouffe wrote. "As soon as it was over he asked, 'When are we doing the next one?'”
Still, I suspect the well-traveled candidate would really rather just have a meal at home.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm pulling for RNC Bruce and Little Johnny Juicebox to win the dinner with Senator Obama grand prize this time around.
I re-entered your names into the new "Dinner with Obama" contest boys, goodluck!
Posted by: John E | July 26, 2007 6:17 PM
This will add to his inflated donor count.
Posted by: Terry | July 26, 2007 7:12 PM
What an honor, having dinner with Senator B. Hussein Obama, the man who believes in mandatory public school education for everyone except his own children.
Posted by: Sierra | July 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Sierra, what an insidious comment. Education is mandatory in this country for everyone up to 16 years of age. Whether one sends their child or children to public, private, or religious schools, or even home schools them is an individual choice. You can't pick a fight with Obama on this one. Buy a ticket to his dinner and you can hear what he has to say unfiltered by Rush Limbaugh or Hillary/Bill.
Posted by: GW | July 26, 2007 8:50 PM
Did Paulo become a cross-dresser by the name of Sierra? Probably got the idea from Guiliani.
Posted by: Marko | July 26, 2007 9:57 PM
What an honor, having dinner with Senator B. Hussein Obama, the man who believes in mandatory public school education for everyone except his own children.
Posted by: Sierra | July 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Sierra your a reject. Look on the bright side you have company in John D and RNC tool Bruce.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | July 27, 2007 12:17 AM
People actually LIKE Barack. That really burns you guys, doesn't it? How likeable do you think the American public will find Rudy?
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 27, 2007 1:06 AM
Sierra,
What are you talking about?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 27, 2007 1:52 AM
As it should be, Obama has a choice in where to send his children to school, whether to the public school one minute from his home or the University of Chicago elementary school 5 minutes away. He chooses the UI private school. Unfortunately, the poor people he represents mostly do not have that choice.
They cannot afford private schools and, because they work, cannot home school. Charter schools are great but are artificially limited by the state government in number. If politicians can be for choice in one social respect, why not another?
Posted by: Phoenix | July 27, 2007 8:00 AM
Do ANY Democratic presidential candidates have their kids in public schools?
And yet the Democrats oppose the voucher plans that would give ALL parents freedom of choice in where to educate their children.
Private schools are ok for their own children, but not for the children of others.
Posted by: Bruce | July 27, 2007 9:45 AM
RNC Bruce,
Parents already have freedom of choice in where to send their kids to school.
Cite a law that requires children to be sent to public school?
I put my kid through Catholic primary school. Was I breaking the law? I don't think so.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 27, 2007 11:52 AM
In answer to the question, John Edwards and wife sent their kids to public schools. There may be others, but not Clinton and Obama who send or sent their children to private schools but oppose vouchers that would give innercity minorities the option to take their children out of failing public schools and place them in private schools. Clinton/Obama can afford private schools; most innercity parents cannot. For those of you who can afford $7,000-$15,000 a year for private schools, good for you. But for those who oppose vouchers to help the poor, you are herewith invited to
visit some of the innercity schools where the dropout rate is 50 percent or more. Maybe then you will see the need.
Posted by: Shanika | July 27, 2007 12:21 PM
In answer to the question, John Edwards and wife sent their kids to public schools. There may be others, but not Clinton and Obama who send or sent their children to private schools but oppose vouchers that would give innercity minorities the option to take their children out of failing public schools and place them in private schools. Clinton/Obama can afford private schools; most innercity parents cannot. For those of you who can afford $7,000-$15,000 a year for private schools, good for you. But for those who oppose vouchers to help the poor, you are herewith invited to
visit some of the innercity schools where the dropout rate is 50 percent or more. Maybe then you will see the need.
Posted by: Shanika | July 27, 2007 12:21 PM
According to Wikipedia, John Edwards' daughter Catherine attended the Broughton Magnet HS in Raleigh (about as far removed from your normal public school as you can get) before attending Princeton (private) and Harvard (private). It's not ilegal to attend private colleges, but this record hardly shows the great devotion to public schools that John Edwards tries to claim.
Ms Edwards' synergy with the "poor" is on a par with her father's:
"Today in heartwarming internet upstart stories: meet Urbanista, an online shopping rolodex designed to help the well-heeled girlies of New York hunt down the best tailors, doctors, boutiques and whatnot, all compiled from the opinions of some 1,000 ladies who lunch. As the Urbanistas say, "a hip 20-something is totally going to trust her besties' advice over Google" when figuring out where to get her "Marc Jacobs shoes re-heeled." (And if you don't have MJ shoes, precious, we really don't know how you can even get out of your Portica canopy bed in the morning.)
Best of all, the Urbanista Rolodex is brought to you by girls who absolutely would know where to throw their money: enterprising Vanity Fair editorial assistants Jessica Flint and Cate Edwards -- as in daughter of smiley would-be VP John Edwards. Daddy (and Graydon) must be so proud." (from the Gawker)
Posted by: Bruce | July 27, 2007 1:55 PM
All of your writers cite the common rhetoric that designers school, clothes shoes are all Q public wants, that the candidates are snobs, their children are too good for public schools, (while theirs can't cannot afford to attend private schools.)The issue in truth or part is that ALL candidates have deep pockets which they will use for their own selfish interest. They will never donate any portion to any cause other than the one that best helps their own. And all this rhetoric is for show. Make your own choice and remember whatever you hear is only for getting elected. And as for educating the dropout students,they have bigger problems than all of the opinions.I do not see anyone talk about how to change/improve their envi-onment, survive parental failure or drug use, peer pressure,things beyond societies control. So pray tell me, how can a candidate fix a social problem when most of us have a difficult enough time getting our lives the way it should be and we have only our families to tend to?.
Posted by: roz | July 28, 2007 3:03 PM
All of your writers cite the common rhetoric that designers school, clothes shoes are all Q public wants, that the candidates are snobs, their children are too good for public schools, (while theirs can't cannot afford to attend private schools.)The issue in truth or part is that ALL candidates have deep pockets which they will use for their own selfish interest. They will never donate any portion to any cause other than the one that best helps their own. And all this rhetoric is for show. Make your own choice and remember whatever you hear is only for getting elected. And as for educating the dropout students,they have bigger problems than all of the opinions.I do not see anyone talk about how to change/improve their envi-onment, survive parental failure or drug use, peer pressure,things beyond societies control. So pray tell me, how can a candidate fix a social problem when most of us have a difficult enough time getting our lives the way it should be and we have only our families to tend to?.
Posted by: roz | July 28, 2007 3:03 PM