Good for him. 

but Hillary is pleased to accept their cash?

Where is the real news here?

I suspect that at least some who reflect on this story will move from "leaning toward Obama" into the "committed to Obama" camp.

so when Jim Webb accepted lobbyist and PAC money it's alright but when Edwards and Clinton take it it's all of a sudden bad?  Corporatists...? come on.  As someone who knows about presidential level fundraising I can tell you that the only lobbyists that are contributing money are solid Ds.  They don't get any special access to a Presidential candidate.  I can tell you this should Edwards or Clinton lose and Obama win, the DNC starts taking that lobbyist money with his full blessing.  Don't be tricked by something that is essentially a gimic.

I'm stupid, and I can fall for gimics.

In my decades living on various continents and in assorted cultures, in every place I've encountered individuals far smarter than I am. I've tried to learn from them whatever I can absorb. All any of us can do is try to plow ahead with whatever few horses he has.

But one small slice of reality is that Republicans have the advantage when it comes to soliciting the $2,300 (or $4,600 per couple) donations. Such donations come in the greatest numbers from the wealthiest .7 percent, the Republicans' chief economic constituency. The donations are bundled by corporatist sponsors who go down the corridors soliciting contributions from colleagues or junior executives in their firms or from buddies at their swank country clubs. Hillary's camp is especially proud of its "million dollar bundlers," but the Republicans will always come out on top in this contest.

Is it unreasonable for Obama and Edwards to try to engage the other 99.3 percent of the population, most of whom would stand to benefit from a shift to Democratic governance? Soliciting $50, $100, $250, $500, or $1,000 donations from the working class and middle class may seem cumbersome, but at the same time these donors acquire a stake in the campaign and will be good candidates to go out and do grassroots GOTV work. We did this with Jim Webb's campaign last fall, and perhaps the model can be extended nationwide. (And yes, Chuck Schumer's infusion of advertising money in the last week of the campaign was important, but no more important than Webb's magnificent volunteer GOTV effort in northern Virginia, Richmond, Newport, and Charlottesville.)

It may well be that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination with superior fund-raising, better control of the party's apparatus, and shrewd exploitation of the popularity of Bill. But she won't win it because of her demonstrated judgment (i.e., her contortions on Iraq), ability to lead, or capacity to inspire. All the same, most of us would fall in line and vote for her against any current Republican candidate.

By the way, demo925, I've noticed from your past postings that you are a strong proponent of the war in Iraq, an enthusaistic booster of Joe Lieberman, and a consistent supporter of Hillary Clinton. You are also frequently abusive to other posters.

I know that the Democratic Party is a "big tent" party, but I thought that RaisingKaine was a gathering place for progressive Democrats in Virginia.

Uh, demo925, could you possibly be a troll?

Obama cares more about small donations - he won't be able to compete for the big guns with Hill and Edwards, so his campaign has to focus much more on the Dean strategy of cultivating a large volume grassroots donations (even if it means they don't have time to even make calls like this). 

If so, good for him.

they say that so small donors get a fuzzy feeling in their heart. Again as someone who is very familiar with the Obama fundraising team and strategy this is a bunch of PR nonsense.  Think would we rather have a bunch of $4,600 checks or a bunch of $50 checks? granted everyone knows $50 checks add up but don't buy this shit.

and your logic even more off than I orginally though.  You are saying that because they were focused on small dollar contribs they didn't have time to call for big money? again it's just a sign of disorganization.  I can promise you that Obama is taking in just as many big dollar donations as Clitnon and Edwards or else why has be crossed the entire country to do high dollar 250k minimum fundraisers?

Then I'd pick Hillary.

A. He, too, will never be President.

I love Obama, but (a) I know for a fact that he's also taking large check from established donors, and (b) he absolutely needs to bring in the money to win.

California is the most populous state in the union, and New Jersey is the most-densely populated state in the union.  Both have moved up their primaries, and both are too populous to rely on field and retail to win, placing a greater emphasis on broadcast media, which in turn places a greater emphasis on $$$.

(PS- if you're lauding Obama for relying more on small dollar contributions over "bribes," and you haven't made YOUR small dollar contributions, quit being a jackass and go donate on his website).

So what a bunch of rich people are whining. He's pulling Presidential crowds already. And to no surprise to anyone should Gore or Clark not run, I am with Obama.

Don't tell you momma! =)

Or is Virginia without Warner, Gore or Clark..

Obama Country? Hmmm...

You speak like Hillary winning would be a tragedy.  Why?

America already chose a president who was short on experience and heavy on folksy charm (maybe not to most Democrats though).  And look at where that has landed us?

Hillary Clinton is a known quantity and she brings along with her Bill Clinton!  Obama is good looking and charming, but he speaks in platitudes like every other politician.  I would prefer to see details, plans, something concrete rather than hope this and opportunity that.  The only thing I can recall substantively about Obama is that he supported the reintroduction of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act; because as we all know coal is the wave of the future.  Which I would add to those of you who suggest that Obama is a chaste and delicate flower when it comes to corporate special interest, you must be seeing something that I am not.

that I think Hillary Clinton would make a fine President.  As would Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Wes Clark, or Al Gore.

...would take a deep breath and remember it's very early.  Some folks speak as if Obama had the election in the bag and that Hillary was the wicked witch.  I'd sure like to see some substance in this race before before the party turns into a pile of name-calling squabblers.

I know it's fun to be involved with with a "rock star" candidate.  We've all done this before. I remember wearing my Clean Gene button and cursing Bobby Kennedy for getting into the race in 68.  But the level of discourse I see on many of the blogs is reaching a very low level--I think lower than ever.

I like Obama fine and I also think Clinton has her merits.  I admire Edwards populist thinking, and there's a couple of Senators I think are pretty well qualified. Any of them would  better than the man sitting in the Oval Office right now.

I think the most important thing we can do right now is try to build our party, register voters, and work hard to inform our young people and all new voters about what it means to be a Democrat, regardless of who you're supporting.  We've lost a lot of elections over the years for the simple reason that voters are so angry by the end of a primary, they either split off and vote for someone like Nader, or in the case of our easily disappointed young people, just don't show up at the polls at all. It would be nice to open up a blog and see supporters of a particular candidate articulate his or her positions on issues, instead of accusations and blame.  I thought the premise Lowell was proposing in this piece was pretty on point.  Obama is new to the game, and he's gonna make some mistakes, and anyone counting out the supurb organization of Hillary and the powerful advantage having Bill Clinton on your side, needs to read a bit of history.  Obama may very well win, but it's a long race, and voters tend to change their minds.  Obama's had a pretty good run so far, but it's a long time til the primary and sadly, we're all fickle, especially when we're picking rock stars. 

Now, more than any other time in our party's history we need unity.  This lack of unity has cost us the last two Presidential elections.  Say what you will about Bush stealing the election in Florida, but it was the Nader voters who put the state in play.

I've been taking a look at the anti-war movement with the same fearful eye.  Noting a diary by Lowell on Sunday about the 9-11 crackpots and other groups out for themselves and seeing the same types infiltrate anti-war groups I've been familiar with, I worry for the future of progressive Democratic movement.  If we remain as splintered and angry as some of us seem, I fear we will play right into the plans of the Republican Party, and though it would be my greatest nightmare, I hope we don't help them win again.

is write on the money.  Nick, you rock!

Nick,  You've made an excellent point here:  "I think the most important thing we can do right now is try to build our party, register voters, and work hard to inform our young people and all new voters about what it means to be a Democrat, regardless of who you're supporting."

Following Gore and Kerry's losses, the media did a continuous obnoxious diatribe on "what does the Democratic Party stand for?".  It infuriated me, that considering the incredible history of the Democratic Party, the media would stoop so low just to get a story. 

I think it's time that we focus back on what the Democratic Party stands for, what it has given this country, and what it will give Americans in the future.  It's not about one candidate or another.  Candidates come and go.  We need to get back to the days of talkingh about our Party, our principles and our accomplishments.  The Republican Party has found its success by doing this....it's time we start doing that again. We don't "sell" our party nearly as much as the Republican "sells" theirs. 

Let's focus more on relating to the American public what it means to be a Democrat and why they are better off with Democrats leading this country.  Let's not get lost in candidates at this point.
 

This Jersey boy would like to tell some bunch of elitists calling themselves "the group" where to stick it.

I know a significant number of activists who are raising the bucks for Barack and I am considering signing up.  No way I'm going to do it for Hillary.  I do not want to live in a monarchy.  Lets turn the page and leave Bush-Clinton behind.

Nick makes good points.

PS New Jersey is an f...ing pit and they should clean it up.  "The Group", at least as they style themselves (this is absolutely the first I've heard of them), strike me as part of the problem.  And by the way, it seems like the same sort of problem we've encountered here in Virginia.  Everybody knows what I'm talking about.  I don't mean any offense, honestly, but grassroots activists are an important part of the party and I know that here in Virginia we've established ourselves.

As much as I think Virginia is retro politically on issues such as land use and cigarettes, it is cleaner and much better run than New Jersey.

Here I am puffing away my last gasps, and Louisville has set the smoking ban for July 1.  I cry and wheeze and say goodbye to an era.  I'm not sure I can drink whiskey without a Camel but we'll see.  I do like my whiskey.

(cough)

A group of donors wants to make themselves sound important by making up a story about how Barak wouldn't meet with them, and that's why they are going with Hillary.  In reality they were going with Hillary all along. "The Group" gets press on this story.  Hillary's team gets a story about how Obama's organization is not up to task for running a big time campaign.

ya make up a story... if that makes you feel better.

n/t