In the unlikely event that you haven’t heard:
Clinton: $26 million.
Obama: $22 million, according to rumors.
Edwards: $14 million.
Richardson: $6 million.
Dodd: $4 million.
Biden: $3 million.
Kucinich: $1 million.
Gravel: $1 million.
Romney: $23 million.
Giuliani: $15 million.
McCain: $12.5 million.
I can’t find numbers for the lesser Republicans. These things aren’t the be-all and end-all of campaigning; ask Phil Gramm or John Connally and they’ll tell you as much (apparently, Texan Democrats-turned-Republicans do great at fundraising but badly in actual Republican primaries/caucuses). But that Obama is within a Dodd of Clinton is very good news indeed. On the Republican side, I think it’s now evident that McCain is fading, fast, and I doubt that he’ll be able to pull together the donor or public support that he needs. But Romney womped Giuliani as well, which I think is a good harbinger of future shifts in public opinion. Giuliani has the lead now, but he doesn’t have the funds or ground operations to back it up, while Romney does. The definite winner now is Romney, which is very, very, very good news for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Speaking of 2008, my family and I hosted an Obama house party this weekend, the bulk of which consisted of watching him speak to a crowd in Iowa. He did great, and actually surprised me some times, particularly when he lay into No Child Left Behind (he went so far as to say that he won’t vote for reauthorization in its current state). He also provided a lot more detail on health policy than he’s given credit for. I disagreed with him on occasion, particularly on ethanol (he was asked a question by an Iowan against ethanol, the likes of which I had no idea existed), but all in all he was very impressive, and I encourage anyone interesting in his policy views to watch it. Call him what you will, but his suit is far from empty.

5 thoughts on “Fundraising

  1. BTW, if you want some interesting homework, what exactly are the justices saying in “MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA”? I tried to skim Roberts’ dissent, but he might as well have written all of it in Latin as far as my comprehension goes. I had thought that he was Mr. Clarity, right-wing though he may be, but this time I do not see it.
    Scalia is a bit easier to follow. He seems to be saying that the EPA has legitimately concluded that “the science is uncertain” when it comes to global warming. Roberts is not mainly saying that; rather he is playing some kind of 3D chess whose axes are standing, precedent, and jurisdiction.

  2. While the offer of reading an obscurantist, overly-technical conservative legal opinion is really quite tempting, I think I’ll take a pass. I currently have to decide whether to a) build a theremin b) build a telescope or c) study chaos theory for a physics project, any which of which would render reading Roberts impractical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s