Is it really all about money?

Apparently Barack Obama significantly outraised all of his other Democratic presidential rivals, including Moneybags Hillary Clinton, in the second quarter of 2007. While Clinton had an overall higher amount raised in the first quarter, that total included a $10 mil. transfer from her Senate campaign account and a significant amount of donations dedicated to the general election campaign (meaning that donors who had tapped out their maximum primary donation doubled-down and gave additional money that can't be spent unless and until she wins the nomination.) Without those number-padding advantages, she raised about $27 million in Q2 while Obama raised at least $32.5 million.


I haven't given any money to any of the candidates yet because I just can't decide who to support. Honestly, I could see myself voting for most of them--definitely for Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and I'd even consider voting for Biden though he isn't my first choice. In the general election, I'd support all of them except perhaps Kucinich and that freakazoid Gravel. I just can't get a read on who I'd like to see win the nomination apart from a strong feeling that nominating Hillary would be a tragic mistake.


I wonder how many people there are out there like me, with money to donate but who just can't wrap themselves up in one particular candidate. And I haven't decided if this is a good sign or bad--if it means an embarassment of riches in the candidates or if it means that nobody is jumping out at me as THE choice. Perhaps I'm just waiting for Al Gore to sack up and get into the race to save our nation from the aftermath of the man who shouldn't have been president. If he got in, my choice would be infinitely easier.


I'm leaning towards Obama right now, but I am persuadable. I like what Edwards has done with taking on the right wing media, and I think Bill Richardson is easily the most qualified and experienced candidate of the bunch. Richardson and Edwards have seemed really unimpressive in the debates, however, while Obama continues to impress me.


But in spite of Obama's fundraising prowess and the financial advantage that all of the Democrats apparently hold over Republicans right now, I'm a little bothered by the exponential increase of campaign contributions in the presidential primaries. If it's grassroots fundraising then I think it's an excellent sign of an involved and motivated electorate, but if it's simply corporate and big-dollar contributors hedging their bets on Democratic candidates based on the November 2006 election results, then I have as much of a problem with the big money as I did when George W. Bush had the crazy overloaded war chest in 2000. In my opinion precious little good comes from that much money in an election and it's a huge invitation to the worst kind of politics--television advertising and media manipulation. I'd really like to see a movement away from relying on heavy television advertising to do most of the work of changing minds and turning out the vote, and more attention being paid to being a good candidate who develops motivated and dedicated followers on the ground.


Besides, it's way too early to declare a race to be over based upon massive fundraising the year before the primaries. Howard Dean is a great example--he outraised everyone, to the point that John Kerry had to loan himself money to keep his campaign on life-support heading into Iowa, and then once he won Iowa and New Hampshire he blew the doors off internet fundraising and Dean's financial advantage became moot. It would be a shame if either Clinton or Obama ended up appearing like an obvious also-ran with the voters even as they have $20+million in the bank after the first front-loaded primary week. In the event that happens, I hope that hubris won't prevent them from doing the right thing and transferring the remaining money to other candidates or the party itself for the benefit of the causes they care about.


I also continue to have big problems with Hillary Clinton using her husband as her primary water-carrier for fundraising purposes. I just can't shake the feeling that people won't be supporting her in her own right, rather than out of loyalty to Bill Clinton or a desire to see him speak. And that bothers me because I don't think it does female candidates any favors to see one of them succeeding based largely on affection for her husband. I'd really like to see a legitimate female candidate who was popular in her own right and not because of her political husband. (This means I rule out Elizabeth Dole as well.) I guess we're still a ways away from seeing that day, and it's unfortunate. But at least we are seeing a legitimate first, which is a black presidential candidate who's outraising all of his rivals and getting broad across-the-board support from the Democratic voter spectrum. I'm hopeful that it is indicative of Obama's appeal within the general electorate as well.