• 
• 
• 
• 
The campaign collection plate runneth over for the third quarter: Sen. Barack Obama at a church service in downtown Columbia, S.C. on Sunday. AP Photo by C. Aluka Berry of The State
by John McCormick and Mike Dorning
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign raised "at least" $20 million during the third quarter, his campaign announced today, down significantly from his first and second quarter totals.
The Illinois Democrat raised $25.7 million during the first quarter and $32.9 million during the second quarter.
Obama's campaign said at least $19 million of the third-quarter total was money that can be used for the primary campaign, with the rest being available for a potential general election bid, should he win his party's nomination.
"With over 350,000 donors and more than a half a million donations, Americans hungry for change know that Barack Obama is the candidate with the right experience to make that change happen," said Penny Pritzker, Obama's national finance chair. "Thanks to this unprecedented grassroots support, the Obama campaign will have the resources we need to win the nomination and the White House.”
Specifically, Obama's campaign said it now has about 352,000 donors, including more than 93,000 new donors during the third quarter.
The third quarter is traditionally a slower fundraising quarter because so many Americans are on vacation during the late summer months. Still, Obama's lower number for the quarter came despite benefiting from a star-studded $3 million event at the California home of Oprah Winfrey.
Still no word on a third-quarter total from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is expected to announce his total this afternoon.
Watch for updates here later today.
Comments
Actual count of the recent Swamp articles on this screen, per the headlines:
Political right: (2) (Gingrich not running, and White House)
Political left: (15)
B. Clinton 2, H. Clinton, Dem Cong. DeLauro, Seymour Hersh, Obama (4), Jane Fonda, Edwards (3), Dems/children (2)
Count of 2008 presidential candidates: 0 GOP, 7 Dem.
15-2. 7-0.
In other words, a typical day at the Swamp.
Posted by: Bruce | October 1, 2007 2:19 PM
Bruce
The Republicans are irrelevant. They stand for nothing and have little chance of winning anything.
They should be ignored.
Posted by: nisleib | October 1, 2007 2:28 PM
..."Actual count of the recent Swamp articles on this screen, per the headlines:
Political right: (2) (Gingrich not running, and White House)
Political left: (15)
B. Clinton 2, H. Clinton, Dem Cong. DeLauro, Seymour Hersh, Obama (4), Jane Fonda, Edwards (3), Dems/children (2)
Count of 2008 presidential candidates: 0 GOP, 7 Dem.
15-2. 7-0.
In other words, a typical day at the Swamp.
Posted by: Bruce | October 1, 2007 2:19 PM"...
...reading Bruce's daily bitch about the Swamp...
...priceless...
Posted by: The Original BZ | October 1, 2007 2:44 PM
How sad. All that money really could go for something useful. What a waste.
Posted by: nick | October 1, 2007 3:15 PM
Count of 2008 presidential candidates: 0 GOP, 7 Dem.
15-2. 7-0.
In other words, a typical day at the Swamp.
Posted by: Bruce | October 1, 2007 2:19 PM
You're right Brucie,
I want to see more stories on how the Republicans aka the "Family Values Party" blew off their debate in front of the Hispanic Americans and their debate in front of the Black Americans.
How about it, Mark?
Posted by: John E | October 1, 2007 3:17 PM
It's a shame that the candidates don't spend the money on some of the causes they want to fix when the get elected. Also, if they can raise that kind of money for their campaign, why can't they raise that kind of money for healthcare, schools, homeless, etc.
Posted by: Lynn | October 1, 2007 4:29 PM
All the republicans are racist, closet gays with a lot of oil stocks. What else would people want to know about them?
Posted by: TheTruthTheLight | October 1, 2007 4:35 PM
The Republicans are irrelevant. They stand for nothing and have little chance of winning anything.
They should be ignored.
Posted by: nisleib | October 1, 2007 2:28 PM
I beg to differ on the last point of your snark. This is still ostensibly a democracy and no viable party should be ignored. Vote for the party of your choice, but don't lose sight of the fact that it's important to have a choice, and to be able to weigh your options.
Though I know some clowns here would love it, I'm sure that you, nislieb, really wouldn't enjoy living in a single party state.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 5:32 PM
Bruce is right.
As usual, however, the Left does not respond with substance, but instead resorts to childish name calling and related blather.
Can the Left please concede that the Swamp has a blatant liberal bias??
-RT, Chicago
Posted by: RT | October 1, 2007 5:32 PM
Not only does the political Left not want both sides reported, they positively glory in their own ignorance.
Messrs. Dorning and McCormick--note that not even the leftists posting here pretend that you're unbiased.
Posted by: Bruce | October 1, 2007 5:34 PM
bRuNCe,
The amount of time Bruce whines when he posts - 110%.
Posted by: Doug Zook | October 1, 2007 5:36 PM
..."Can the Left please concede that the Swamp has a blatant liberal bias??
-RT, Chicago
Posted by: RT | October 1, 2007 5:32 PM"...
...sure will...the day you and the rest of the NeoClowns admit that Fox News has a right-wing bias...
...sauce for the goose...sause for the gander...
...you retort...we decide...
Posted by: The Original BZ | October 1, 2007 5:40 PM
Though I know some clowns here would love it, I'm sure that you, nislieb, really wouldn't enjoy living in a single party state.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 5:32 PM
Wow, spoken like only a true spineless Republican could once they realize that their reign is coming to an end.
No one likes you at work, at home, in private or on here.
Get lost!
Posted by: TiaRachel | October 1, 2007 5:47 PM
Anonymous
You're right; I don't want to live in a single party state. Sadly, for the most part, we already do.
The same people buy politicians from both sides of the aisle. You don't think Exxon gives to both sides?
While we here at the Swamp often blow up the differences, exaggerate the actions, and vilify our opponents the truth is there is very little difference between the two parties. Oh, sure, they (by that I mean both sides) say they stand for something, but when it comes right down to it the differences are minor.
Maybe we will get a candidate that really stands for something. If we do it means Hillary and Mitt lost the primaries. We should all be so lucky.
My point was, Anonymous, that the media isn't paying a lot of attention to Republicans now any more than they did the Democrats in 2002. Quite frankly the GOP is not where the action is. People fault the media for chasing stories about OJ or showing a squirrel playing piano, and they should. But the viewers want to see it, so the media gives it to them. If Bruce is upset that the Swamp shows more stories about Dems than it does Reps he should focus that irritation on the GOP, which has spent the last six years digging a hole to bury themselves in.
P.S. - Sorry about the bad grammar, I'm on deadline.
Posted by: nisleib | October 1, 2007 5:55 PM
nisleib,
Well said. I know you're not one of the clowns; I was really addressing others and your post happened to be a convenient springboard.
Yes the Republicans are irrelevant these days. They're in descent and that's a good thing inasmuch as we live in a political system in which power shifts -- even though there is little difference between the parties, as you've (we've) noted.
And yet some fools pine for a permanent majority. That's disturbing to read, even if people do tend toward hyperbole in blogs.
PS: Don't sweat the grammar; grammar's always been a mystery to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 7:58 PM
"No one likes you at work, at home, in private or on here."
John E, how could you possibly know that?
In fact (pardon me if this seems immodest) I'm highly respected and well liked at work. And I'm loved by my family. I'm not sure what "private" means, but my friends are few and very dear, as friends should be. So where do you get off spewing nonsense like that, math wiz?
Here some advice: if you want to insult me (or anybody) don't write it yourself. You just don't have the chops for attempting wit.
Oh, and thank you for not attempting Spanish.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 8:20 PM
Oh, and thank you for not attempting Spanish.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 8:20 PM
No one is interested in listening to how you fancy yourself a "smart" guy.
Get lost, loser...
Posted by: I am more terse, less cynical and less party oriented...You don't need a scorecard | October 1, 2007 10:05 PM