by John McCormick
The ground game numbers war continues to escalate in Iowa, with the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama announcing today that it has opened its 32nd and 33rd field office in the state.
The new offices are in Fairfield and Perry, both regional towns with strong Democratic bases. The Illinois Democrat is expected to campaign in Perry on Saturday.
According to an analysis this week by The Des Moines Register, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has the next-highest number of offices in the state, at 22. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson follow at 15.
On Wednesday, meanwhile, NBC reported that Clinton plans to add 100 more paid staff members to Iowa by Nov. 1.
That would push her past Obama in total Iowa paid staff. The Register's report showed Obama with 145, Edwards with 130, Clinton with 117 and 78 for Richardson.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
How interesting..Obama has people driving 1000+ miles to volunteer their services in Iowa. I'm one of them packing the dog and the car as we speak..btw, I'm closer to Hill's age than 30 ;-)
Posted by: Elisabeth | October 25, 2007 2:46 PM
33 field offices in Iowa? Didn't think they had that many towns. How much money is this costing Obama? He sure can spend it! Guess what he is going to cost you if and when he is elected? Same goes for Clinton!
Posted by: quills | October 25, 2007 3:00 PM
How interesting..Obama has people driving 1000+ miles to volunteer their services in Iowa. I'm one of them packing the dog and the car as we speak..btw, I'm closer to Hill's age than 30 ;-)
Posted by: Elisabeth | October 25, 2007 2:46 PM
I will be driving from Chicago to Iowa to help canvass.
Posted by: Marko | October 25, 2007 3:01 PM
Regardless of what I think of Obama, no candidate should have 33 offices anywhere, let alone in a single state. It is sickening the amount of money that goes into these campaigns. Even more sickening that it usually boils down to who raises the most, not who's the best candidate.
Posted by: Bob | October 25, 2007 3:12 PM
"Regardless of what I think of Obama, no candidate should have 33 offices anywhere, let alone in a single state. It is sickening the amount of money that goes into these campaigns. Even more sickening that it usually boils down to who raises the most, not who's the best candidate."
Don't hate the player . . . hate the game. At least Obama was the first to support the public financing of campaigns.
Posted by: Chandler | October 26, 2007 3:00 AM
Obama's money comes mostly from small donors (unlike Hillary's huge lobbyist base). The only people he's beholden to, at the end of the day, will be the hundreds of thousands of citizens from all walks of life who've given him $5, $20, or $100.
Obama's main message is about changing the game -- reducing the influence of money in politics. But he has to win the game as it's played today to get into a position of power to change it. And he's doing a fantastic job of it, staying toe-to-toe with the best-connected establishment candidate in years WITHOUT resorting to taking money from any special interests. Nobody has ever done something like that before.
It's also great that Obama is spending his money opening up offices. He's using it to mobilize people, to organize his supporters, rather than burning it on television ads. The choice to focus on building infrastructure is wise and a good reflection of the judgment he'll show as President.
Posted by: Jason | October 29, 2007 1:39 PM
Obama raised his big bucks in NY and CA ... just like all candidates do. Please stop pretending he managed to raise all his loot in $50 donations.
He got probably 6 mil tops each Q from small donars. The rest is max cash.
Posted by: Dickie Flatts | November 15, 2007 1:27 PM