digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Obama Rewriting Rules for Raising Campaign Money Online

washingtonpost.com — Obama has shattered fundraising records and challenged ideas about the way presidential bids are financed. While past campaigns have relied largely on support from small circles of wealthy and well-connected patrons, Obama has received contributions from more than 1 million donors. He raised $91 million in the first two months of 2008 alone.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • zephyear, on 03/28/2008, -8/+17obama doing it real big
    • davidrools, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1and everyone else will emulate this in the next election, after seeing Obama's success.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Only if they are worth supporting.
        • davidrools, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1i was referring to the way obama spent a comparatively large amount on online advertising.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2Yeah, I guess belonging to a racist church has its benefits. "send... me your money" (song from Suicidal Tendencies)
    • PhilLesh69, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2If you watch mainstream news, you should find this offensive. This guy is not binding his presidency with corporations and special interest groups.

      This was why I actually thought Ron Paul might be a fresh, new start for our great democracy (though I was not a Ron Paul nut, I just toyed with the idea that I could vote for him.)

      While I still don't count McCain out, as I think he might be playing the system in order to win, while holding onto his earlier beliefs (and at the same time, not discounting that he could have sold out.) I am much more in favor of a candidate who has not taken money from big money donors, from corporations with an interest in having leverage with a candidate.

      I'm sure he has taken some money from some big interest donors, but the more they avoid this, the better.
    • SilverJman, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0Here Here!!!!
  • bullcutter, on 03/28/2008, -8/+47"While past campaigns have relied largely on support from small circles of wealthy and well-connected patrons, Obama has received contributions from more than 1 million donors. "

    This in itself is proof of Obama's ability to reinvigorate politics for average Americans... and thusly proof that his candidacy is by far more legit than some others...
    • MoofTheStoof, on 03/28/2008, -3/+14I'm a widower and I only work part, part-time because one of my kids is autistic. We live on a tiny budget and I still donated a few bucks. And will again in a few months. Politics has long been a hobby of mine and the last 7 years have been heartbreaking, but the thought of Barack in the White House has me optimistic for the country for the first time in a long time.
      • PhilLesh69, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2If you want to have more affect, you should start using your internet connection to learn about how money and special interests, and think tanks, and bankers have hijacked our democracy for almost a hundred years. They've even gotten so powerful that they control the media, our educational system, and can manipulate public opinion with precision, in order to turn a profit. ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ... )
        • WhatInThe42o, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4Buried for injecting cynicism into what was a heartwarming comment. Spread your urine on another parade.
  • suzywang3000, on 03/28/2008, -64/+81 million idiots...
    • zephyr42, on 03/28/2008, -4/+301 annoying troll.
      • petebot, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Yeah--she's been on a ***** roll today. Time to pull out my blockstick...
    • kevinwiz, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7I'm offended.
    • SenorCardgage74, on 03/28/2008, -5/+10....Suzywang3000's list of the men she's slept with.
      • suzywang3000, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2well off the mark - it's less than 100.
    • Tenlow, on 03/28/2008, -3/+14How is supporting the candidate you would like to see go to the white house idiotic? It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" and if more people did that instead of just trolling around and berating everyone who doesn't think like they do, it would be a better place around here. Don't want to donate to any of the candidates? Donate to the red cross, humane society, habitat for humanity, greenpeace, ACLU, NRA, NAMBLA, or GNAA. Don't want to donate to anyone? Buy yourself a candy bar. But stop the damn personal attacks. They get nothing done and cheapen your argument as a whole.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5Your opinion. 1 vs 1,000,000
      My opinion + 38 others thus far vs Your 1

      You aren't fairing too well. I think you should quit.
    • BryanCDowney, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1edit
  • saska, on 03/28/2008, -1/+20This is why Clinton has more money for the general than for the primary -- if you have relatively few rich donors, you have a limited resource pool.
  • hrhs556x, on 03/28/2008, -33/+9He needs all the money he can get for his idiotic economic plan.
    • saska, on 03/28/2008, -7/+15You forgot to add:

      RON PAUL!!!!!
      • SenorCardgage74, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3STEVE HOLT!!

        ....oh.....sorry.
        • wrxpert, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I always have to digg Arrested Development references
      • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Lol. I kinda liked Ron Paul except for his supporters.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Some of his supporters are not too bad. Most of them are more informed than most of the supporters the other candidates have.

          They just seem a bit... too overzealous. They have a right to be, because they probably wouldn't have voted or even participated in the current election year without him, but they just needed to tone it down a bit.

          Don't base him on his supporters either. A lot of people attack the supporters and immediately think Ron Paul is bad because of his very enthusiastic supporters not presenting him in the full light, but as a trophy lamp.
          Currently he's not out of the race yet and could very well turn the tides at the RNC, but it's the only glimmer of hope the supporters have, and the ones who are sticking it out until the end are doing everything they can to influence it.
    • brandonchicago, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5The one that you obviously read through...you forgot to mention how much of a racist he is and that he's Muslim.
      • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2And he hates america, and he's black, etc. etc.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2That's a drop in the bucket compared to Bush's War... bitch.
  • reuscel, on 03/28/2008, -3/+63So, the people are picking their leaders now? My god, that sounds like democracy!
    • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Sadly, they really aren't. Its going to come down to the super delegates (Which were created because the DNC didnt think the people could choose the 'right' candidate). Get them out of the picture and then what you say is true. Oh, and the add-on delegates. Have to get rid of them too, but there arent quite so many.

      Statistically speaking, 1 super delegate vote is worth about 10,000 normal votes.

      Thats just wrong
      • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4"My god, that sounds like democracy!"
        We're not there yet, but this could be a giant step towards it with some luck and perseverance.
    • thefirstenemy, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I think it's just a fad.
  • brokenspatula, on 03/28/2008, -39/+4So obama is trying to buy the election? That's real american
    • Acewrap, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14Why are you always such a dick?
    • marmanukem, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Are you completely and utterly retarded? Thats real american.
    • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Actually... everyone is. Its all a money game, and you can bribe super delegates, so it becomes even worse.

      Regardless, you need money to support a campaign. No one is going to vote for you if they don't know who you are or what your policies are.
    • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3If he was buying the election at least he would be buying for the people instead of the grotesquely rich and billion dollar corporations.
      If somebody does have to buy it then I hope its Obama.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Apparently it requires money to pay people to run a campaign, commercials, donuts and other sundry campaign things... go figure.
    • NyteStarNyne, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2If Obama is "buying" the election by having everyday Americans donate money, I wonder what you'd say about Hillary Clinton who pitched in her own 5 million on it.
  • brandonchicago, on 03/28/2008, -2/+21supernova17, why you hurt my feelings? http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Rewriting_Rules_for ...
    • zephyr42, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1Welcome to Digg!!
    • bullcutter, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2people who submit stories shouldn't be able to popularize their own stories, until then, the essence of digg is muddled and held back from being the real resource it could be.
  • donutwant, on 03/28/2008, -18/+7Obamunism, its insidious!
    • saska, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Its insidious what?
      • vade79, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2He's the type to call the band a sellout when they get big.
    • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6Desperate bashing when you have no argument.
      It's insidious.
  • whatthefu, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Well, to be fair we haven't exactly had a candidate for president that is an inspiring speaker since the Internet really gained traction.
    • sizzzzlerz, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I don't know about that but it is definitely true we haven't had a president who could speak in anything but mangled, broken English for 7 years now. It will be refreshing to have someone in the White House who doesn't make you cringe when you hear him make a speech.
      • bullcutter, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3it would be nice to have someone who actually seems to enjoy using the english language & talking to the people... well, so long as its not Hillary
    • tricks574, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Agreed, we haven't had a president who is as great of a communicator as Obama since Reagan. Not saying he's Reaganesque as he's insanely liberal. In all reality Howard Dean started this with his primary campaign, its just he didn't have the same way with words as Obama does, he couldn't incite the masses as well.
  • grungegbunny, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11canidates being supported by the population instead of corporations with interests is a great idea.
    • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What about super delegates? I wouldn't really consider them better than corporations. They can legally be bribed...
  • Bojanglesmn, on 03/28/2008, -17/+7Damnit, Obama is making Ron Paul look stupid.
    • nblsavage, on 03/28/2008, -16/+20Ron Paul's followers made Ron Paul look stupid.
      • robthom, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3Exactly.
        (you beat me to it.)
      • ThndrShk2k, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5Then don't listen to the supporters and listen to him himself.
        If it was the supporters making him look stupid, then you would have to agree that he wasn't stupid before you heard of his supporters. Personally I just ignore the overzealous followers and try to listen to the issues the politicians present, not the possibly false words their supporters may spew.
    • knetworx, on 03/28/2008, -6/+6I'm trying to come up with a good reply, but all that's coming to mind is "duh".
    • Rice, on 03/28/2008, -12/+2Ron Paul makes Ron Paul look stupid.
    • Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -9/+6Obama makes Obama stupid.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/29/2008, -13/+3Supporting Ron Paul makes Ron Paul supporters look stupid.

      Hell, my dumbest cat, the one who is afraid of his own litter box makes Ron Paul supporters look stupid.
    • sipofsoma, on 03/29/2008, -9/+3RON PAUL IS TEH STUPID!!1!1
    • ThndrShk2k, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4So I guess Ron Paul bashing is all the craze because half of the half-assed supporters don't think he has a chance, and thus quit?

      Shame really. I would assume people would bash McCain over Ron Paul any day of the week due to McCain's stupid past.
    • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I am an Obama supporter, but I have a lot of respect for the honorable Dr. Ron Paul. He, too, was against the war, but unfortunately, I can't see the Republican party nominating an anti-war candidate.

      http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr09 ...
  • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -7/+16the media has been waiting to write articles on how the internet has revolutionized campaign finance but they just couldnt buzz about it when it was ron paul who was breaking all the records.

    its ok now that it's obama
    • nblsavage, on 03/28/2008, -10/+11All Ron's money and he still couldn't mount a credible campaign....oh that's right..it was a....CONSPIRACY!! Dun dun dun.
    • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9They did actually

      In all actuality he got more media coverage in proportion to his votes than any other candidate for a long while, and definitely more internet coverage.
    • ThndrShk2k, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3He did get coverage, but that seems not to matter. A person I know at school who's a republican is voting for McCain even though he doesn't like him, and thought Ron Paul only raised $1,000,000. He was surprised that he raised more than the rest of the candidates and had $4.2 mil on Nov 5th and $6 mil on December 16th.

      Ron Paul is currently getting more coverage even with Fox due to the current economic standing and his campaign.
    • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I see your point, but I don't think it's that the media was ignoring his fundraising records - they were just ignoring him. Even when he came in ahead of Guilani, the media barely mentioned him, but always had tons of articles and analysis on Guilani.
  • whoamarcos, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8take that lobbyists!
    • sigg14, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2yeah, that is just less of their own money they have to use to bribe him with so take that lobbyists. don't worry the people will foot the bill to elect the candidate you control. only in america wtf
  • stinkypyper, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5So there is actually a rule book for this somewhere and Barrack has taken a sharpie to it.
  • briankoenig03, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11See, this is what Hillary has been saying all along! Obama just refuses to follow the rules!
    Oh, they're using "rewriting rules" in a metaphorical sense? Not in a real sense, like how her husband's campaign staff helped rewrite the same caucus rules that she now complains about as "undemocratic"? Not like how she, in a recorded interview, said the Michigan primaries "won't mean anything" but has now tried for months to rewrite the rules to seat the delegates? Not like how her campaign wanted to rewrite the rule of LAW in Florida to allow elections by mail?
    The scary thing is that those were just rules she tried to rewrite in the past 3 months. Imagine 4 years in office.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 03/28/2008, -8/+21hey remember that one time Ron Paul wrote the outlines for raising money online? (Over 6 million in one day with virtually no press coverage) Oh wait all you guys forgot about him. My bad Digg.
    • TRScheel, on 03/28/2008, -4/+11Yep, no press coverage... except for:

      http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/ron-paul- ...
      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/1 ...
      http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/ron- ...
      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/17/ ...
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/usnews/w ...
      http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/18/paul.fundra ...
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308404,00.html

      So if you ignore all that above that I found in less than five minutes month after it happening, I am sure you can successfully say that he did it with 'virtually no press coverage' despite the fact that almost every major news organization had a story about it
      • kolinkoolface2, on 03/29/2008, -4/+5hahahah ok lets not get carried away with the medias literal OBSESSION WITH OBAMA. You crack me up trying to make a comment for press coverage. Lets not even mention how much face time Guilani got, as well as Thompson.... both of which lost to Paul in almost every primary. You can not sit there and say the press didn't down play Ron Paul with in the months leading up to the primary.
        • TRScheel, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Comparing % of voters Obama and Paul gained, I would think Paul got the appropriate amount of media coverage if not moreso. That not including the novelty of Obama's skin color and Hillary's gender
          • kolinkoolface2, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2ha the race card. Your blandly lying if you think ron paul got more press coverage then obama.
      • NeCtUr, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1no, what he was saying is that there was no press coverage BEFORE the event telling people about it, it was all grassroots. the press you are talking about is all afterwards.
    • luvtosurf, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5"Over 6 million in one day with virtually no press coverage?" I didn't know Ron Paul had achieved that... now... that's impressive! I heard him speak doing the Republican Debates and I must admit I was impressed. I was surprised that he was Republican. He sounded more like an "Independent" candidate.
    • Pillage, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2Ron Paulbots just switched to Obamabots because he is the new meme-candidate.
    • TheNeptune, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Oddly enough, I found out about Ron Paul's record breaking on CNN the first day after the record was broken... it was during the best time slot of the day too...... Did you want it as the headline on every newspaper, posted on every bulletin, and on every channel 24/7 for the next week? Sheesh... you guys just whine that the media didn't make Paul into more then what he was: internet popular.
      • kolinkoolface2, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2well they didn't..... how much press did guilaini get before the primaries and then who lost Paul.... hmmm i can't believe this... People are so ignorant it's not even funny.
  • jimfin25, on 03/28/2008, -4/+0Only if they spent this money, dammit!

    Dam idiots
  • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3Is anyone keeping track of his spending like you all are doing with McCain? We wouldn't want him to go over the limits now would we? We cannot have almighty Obama being tarnished in any way, shape, or form!
    • mzkply, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Obama doesn't have a spending limit dude, he didn't apply for public financing.
      • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Wow, dude. I haven't been called "dude" in a while. I feel like I'm in a time warp.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Obama never borrowed money against future public funding. So Obama is only limited by the amount of money he raises and not by a regulatory cap. However, you do have to record money raised, spent, and saved during each quarter. And yes, he's been very good at releasing his financial records.
      So what's your argument? Or will you keep making invalid conclusions based on false, unstated premises?
  • zeiben, on 03/28/2008, -2/+28Whatever. Hillary is SO going to win. She is already winning in the following metrics:
    - Most crying
    - Most states that have had sushi rolls named after them
    - Most states with the word "New" in them (take that, change-bama!)
    - Most flamboyant lapels
    - Most convincing attempt at appearing to give a ***** about the voters in Michigan and Florida
    - Most endorsements from disgraced governors
    - Most ***** going on at once in a fantasy 3am phone call
    - most big funders willing to threaten congressional democrats with pulling funding
    etc.

    These numbers don't lie. I don't see how the party elders can deny her the nomination...
  • xwfilm, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Obama hasn't done anything unique. Dean did this 4 years ago. He just didn't get as many donations. Remember "the bat"?
    • scottc, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2True. The innovators usually don't get the credit. It's the imitators that follow them and do a better job of using the innovations. Microsoft is a good example of that.
      • Pherdnut, on 03/29/2008, -4/+1FAIL on "doing a better job."
        • scottc, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2You don't think Obama did a better job of fundraising online than Dean did??? Or are you not following this discussion?
    • TheNeptune, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Actually, Dean has got tons of credit - I just read in a Rolling Stones article how the work of Dean has paved the way for Obama - any person in the political know will tell you that Dean built Obama, and it's the primary reason Clintons are the Dem outsiders because Dean is out of favor and the Clintons want to build a new Dem Party without Dean... thus why Dean put his machine to work behind Obama and not Hillary.

      The Clinton's feud with Dean is the reason Hillary is trailing Obama. Dean is the founder of this new style of politics - he's a better strategist than politician though... but he's widely credited for:

      Internet campaigning / donations.
      Small donors.
      Attacking red states instead of the Dem core.

  • EvansHall, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Meh. Silicon Valley made this happen. Not any campaign.
  • jboom65, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2This man should be our next president.
    • searage, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Why? Tells us your favorite policy he want to implement.
      • Pillage, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2The $10 billion bailout?
      • theaceoffire, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Obama is pro-Network Neutrality. Which means we might avoid a major bullet.
  • Xyrx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5The process of how this lady donated $25 to Obama is precisely how I donated $100 to Obama. Saw an ad, clicked on it, signed up for newsletters, and shortly after receiving several emails, donated $100. I definitely did not feel pressured at all to donate.
  • sigg14, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3It doesn't show how much he paid for people to praise him on digg
  • marilynj7, on 03/28/2008, -11/+4Let's hope not, considering that Obama has ties with Tony Rezko, who demands payback on all his investments.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4The "investments" Obama donated to charity you mean?
  • davea402, on 03/28/2008, -14/+2ONE MILLION DUMBASS who have no idea what OBAMA wants to change....hahahah

    HE PAYS PPL TO COME ON DIGG AND POST ARTICLES FOR HIM...he pays obama girl to show skinnnnn....man that tricky bastard...

    obama osama obama osama....whats his middle name again...hahahahahh idots all of you idots
    • davea402, on 03/29/2008, -9/+1reply u obama lovers
      • theaceoffire, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5[Reply sent: Troll not found. Please resend.]
    • Pillage, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1you are a libtard.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Dave Douche Dave Douche Dave Douche.... has a special ring to it.
    • WhatInThe42o, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Oh, for the love of god, you ***** twit. At least spell 'idiot' correctly!
  • searage, on 03/29/2008, -9/+4Obama Rewriting Rules for Raising Campaign Money

    by taking more money from subprime lenders than any other candidate and announcing a $30,000,000,000 "appreciation" kickback for them.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120666677096370545 ...

    Hmmm, he also is in full support of General Electric's (#3 top lobbyist for the last ten years) "Green Initiative" so NBC/MSNBC/CNBC are the new FauxNews. All the free media he wants and all he has to do is make them hundreds of billions with regulations.

    Interesting how he complains about lobbyists having to much influence, yet nearly his entire platform will benifit the top lobbyist in Washington. See for yourself who they are:
    http://opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

    It's getting harder and harder to figure out who is the lesser of the evils in this election. All three have proven to be shameless liars.
    • saska, on 03/29/2008, -3/+6If you cannot tell the difference between contributions grouped by employer (required information when donating to a candidate) in the database and contributions from a PAC, you're either wilfully misstating or wilfully ignoring the facts.
    • cwcentral, on 03/29/2008, -4/+2But you need to accept the reality that his biggest donors are the major corporations.

      He gets more money from corps and the wealthy than HRC.

      He gets your $10-20 contribution too.

      He preaches he'll represent you. But I just don't see it unless he's willing to screw over his $2500, or even $10000 contributors from Goldman Sachs and the like--from personal, wealthy employees or the corporation itself. And when the going gets tough (i.e recession, lawsuits, global pressure, international affairs) guess who's he going to sacrifices 1st? I doubt it will be his big contributors...

      He's a senator, he knows the game. He's been inside the beltway. His logic to support you (i.e. US) doesn't pass the smell test when he's got the big guys giving him money. Otherwise, he's going to get burn cause politics and money are either oil to a fire (greed+power) or oil+water (deadlock/lameduck)
      • saska, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3There is no point in having the discussion with people who frame their arguments this way, cwcentral.

        Please go ahead and keep telling yourself that although my employer's PAC (of which I am a member) contributed a lump sum of money to Hillary Clinton, the fact that I donated to Ron Paul's and Obama's campaigns personally, and many other employees did too, therefore makes my employer a corporate contributor to those candidates. It still isn't accurate. In fact, I am a member of the PAC because I expect them to look out for the welfare of my employer, and I make personal contributions because I look out for my own welfare.

        There is a way to draw inference here, though. It goes like this: employees in these industries support these candidates. Now, if you hate technology workers like me or bankers like the employees of Goldman Sachs, or if you think that we don't see America through the same lens you do, that's fine. Just don't go extrapolating your opinion of that as fact.
        • queotic, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I agree. When I donated, I had to report the name of my company. If you look at the FEC report, it would show my company's name with a the total number of donations. That is completely different from a company giving millions of dollars to a campaign for their own interests. In January, he raised the most money out, and 90% of that money came from donations under $100. Even without any of the maxed out donors ($2300), he would still raise more money than the other candidates. He is beholden to no one but The People.
  • Frylocke, on 03/29/2008, -7/+7RON PAUL owns the online fundraising records. Get your facts straight.....$4.2 and $6.3 million on 2 separate occasions.
  • jimjoke, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5Gotta love how quickly Digg has swept Ron Paul under the rug and switched to Obama.
    • Quick2822, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2As a Ron Paul supporter, I can say there is much truth to that. It's very interesting.
  • Wynner3, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2I gave money to the Obama campaign hoping he will win. I care more about is win against Hillary than McCain. I just want it to end, soon!
    • WhatInThe42o, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1If you care more about him beating Hillary than you do McCain, you are a dangerous, foolish person.
  • ytsrc, on 03/29/2008, -3/+0would-be-president as well as in-house-presidents must be able to lie and rewrite rules according to jay whitlow but sammie refuses to comment.
  • tricks574, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1He'll still get a ***** of support from lobbyist and interest groups. Surprisingly Dem's get a lot more massive donations from singular donors than the Republicans, at least in the area of 527's. Either way, he's just going to have more money, it doesn't mean he won't be taking the money that the people who traditionally finance campaigns will inevitably offer him.
  • the24throf, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1Im glad Obama can take Ron Paul's ideas, this guy is a real progressive candidate, he has no real plans, McCain will WIN
  • SwordofKahless, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Lets give credit where credit is due. That headline would be accurate if it was describing Ron Paul and how Obama followed suit.
    • adrianmonk, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0OK, let's say that Obama is just copying Ron Paul (and/or Howard Dean) here. What more interesting to me is not that Obama IS copying it but that Hillary and McCain are NOT copying it.

      That tells me that either (1) Hillary and McCain do not have the popular support necessary to get people to participate, or (2) they were not sharp enough to catch on that they should do this (or to figure out how to do it).

      Of course there are some complicating factors here: McCain doesn't need to fight as hard right now because he has his party's nomination locked up. Hillary appeals to a different demographic that doesn't use the Internet as much. But still, overall this tells me that the Obama campaign has got one thing figured out and they've totally nailed it, whereas the other two campaigns haven't got it figured out. And I like candidates who figure stuff out. I like candidates who see things coming.
  • argaen21, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Clinton is just rewriting the election rules in general.
  • novenator, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I donated $25. First time I have given money to ANY candidate.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.