Obama's big donors outweighed small

This is simply another example of how we were mislead by our despicable media sources who blatantly favored Obama.
The crooks who caused our financial mess are still in Congress and we should impeach them and elect honorable representatives to replace these scoundrels.

Just proves that Obama is bought and paid for. So much for change.

A fine example of misleading information by the corporate news. Since anyone person can only contribute 2300 to a presidential campaign, in these terms no donor can really be described as large. Those who contribute in excess of 20 grand to the national party might more aptly be described as large enough to possibly have some influence, and the GOP collects far more on this basis. But even that hardly begins to scratch the surface. Basically this article is pretty much facile and worthless, meant to keep the under-informed clueless.

Still whining about the unfairness of it all. Still refusing to face the manipulation and lied that led us into a war that has cost us fortunes and the support we once had. Oh, by the way were was this article when this Bush first bought him nomination.

Anyone who was really paying attention isn't surprised by this. The only people who actually believed Obama's clean campaign BS were the gerbils who line up to vote straight democrat every election and actually think people like Todd Stroger (Obama endorsed) are doing a good job.
Everyone who can make up their own mind has known for months that "the office of the president-elect" was bought and paid for with special interest money. The gerbils probably still believe he didn't have lobbyists working for him. Riiiiight.

I think it may be the case that the "analysts" didnt want to dig to deep to upset the myth that the "chosen one" was being chosen by th people. The media ignored so much so often that its almost criminal. Mr. Obama is just another political hack elected by the big spenders to push their agenda. This was just a cleverly disguised campaign run by image shapers. Lets hope the ameican people like what they got...you are stuck with it for 4 years.

This "study" sounds like it was done in reverse: Step One, decide what conclusion you want to reach (only a quarter of Obama's money came from "small donations"); Step Two, define things like "small donation" so that you end up with the desired conclusion (people who donated under $200, only one time). It would be far more interesting to find out what fraction of the money came with corporate and special-interest strings attached--for Obama, for McCain, and for the two Bush campaigns. Then we might actually learn something about who's buying our politicians.

Only a week or so ago, you posted a similar story. What you leave out is once again telling - the real story of the Obama fundraising strategy is the ability to go back to small donors again and again, so that some ended up giving over $200 over time. How did they do this? By making every donor feel that his contribution was needed and valued, no matter how small. And by coming back and asking for more - for specific purposes - multiple times. Every donor felt he was a valuable part of the campaign. Sure you can be cynical and say the campaign manipulated its donors; but the fact is regular people gave what they could multiple times because they believed they could make a difference. Please tell the whole story. If all the data is not yet available, sit on your hands and tell the story when it is.

The cited article is incomplete since it doesn't quantify the total number of people who contributed to Obama's campaigns.

How many different people made contributions to Barack Obama's campaigns vs. the number who contributed to John McCain's or to George Bush's 2004 campaigns?

I think a major factor in this year's primaries and presidential elections was the number of people who contributed to a political campaign, namely Barack Obama's, for the first time and that they did so in unprecedented numbers. Whether they contributed more or less than $200 is less important than the number of people who made the contributions.

Image the small donors have ben forgotten already-

Why is this even news?

Not only is Obama incompetent, he is a complete hypocrite.

This all came out with the failure of Freddie and Fannie, two of Obama’s largest contributers.

George Bush brought in a lot of contributions from the average folks. Typical was $100 or less. The problem was that McCain was not liked by the conservatives, even with Palin. Until the GOP puts a candidate out who the conservatives support, you will not see the money.

The democrats are now the party of the rich. All of these CEOs graduate from the Ivy League schools, get brainwashed into thinking that liberalism is "cool". The liberals have learned that by using sophistication factor. Look at how the progressives are always say that they are smarter than the masses. That is why the rich are now supporting democrats.

Even Obama used the sophistication factor. It is elitism.

This article takes limited CFI information out of context and then assigns a headline based upon this limited view. In fact, the implied headline and thesis of this article are pretty much repudiated by the "Mid-Range Repeaters" section of the Campaign Finance Institute article at http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216. At a minimum this article fails to provide all of the facts.

Very few, if any, politicians remeber the small donner-
to them just"canon fodder".

Timely column there, Silva. No wonder why TIme's Mark Halperin (a noted liberal) referred to the media bias in favor of Obama as "disgusting" and not seen since the media's "coverage" of the news leading up to the Iraq war. I still laugh at the Obamapolists who have excuses for everything. Obama was the one running with the lie that his campaign was nearly completely financed by small donations. If his campaign is based on such a fundamental lie - what can American expect about his truthfulness once he takes the oath of office?

Anyone who was really paying attention isn't surprised by this. The only people who actually believed Obama's clean campaign BS were the gerbils who line up to vote straight democrat every election and actually think people like Todd Stroger (Obama endorsed) are doing a good job.
Everyone who can make up their own mind has known for months that "the office of the president-elect" was bought and paid for with special interest money. The gerbils probably still believe he didn't have lobbyists working for him. Riiiiight.

Posted by: Jeff | November 29, 2008 10:30 AM

Yes, as opposed to Jeff's consistent belief in McCain's "clean campaign", which was ALSO BS, just piled higher and of a more aromatic vintage.
.
BTW -- Jeff, sorry to break this to you. Your guy lost.

Are the pugs here that blinded by partisanship to not be able to think logically? Maybe these pugs do not know how to crunch numbers, or figure statistics, or many other “amazing” number tricks. This story means nothing….really, nothing SWAMP (Mark). As someone pointed out, these statistics do not take in account the amount of small donations (not donors). Obama managed to make a bunch of “big” donors out of people with average (and sub-average means) by inspiring people to make small donations. I also do not think $200 is a “big donor” either. Please SWAMP, post some real news, and I know you know that this is fake news used to grab attention.

This is VERY old news. Anybody who ever cared to look knew at least a year ago that Obama's campaign was financed by big money, his staff peopled with lobbyists and corporate execs.
.
"BTW -- Jeff, sorry to break this to you. Your guy lost."
Posted by: Op109 | November 29, 2008 3:09 PM
.
BTW -- Op109, sorry to break it to you, but nobody won. The system is still badly broken.

I'm sorry but am I the only American that is outrage at high cost of running for public office?. The amount of money that was spent on the Presidential election was obscene!
What is even more problematic is that there isn't any real accounting for where it came from. I.e. what governments, and what other shadowy individuals.? If this guy is really for the poor, why doesn't the Democratic party donate it to some needy charity.?