From the “Nothing Succeeds Like Success” department:
Barrack raises over $8M in first week of 1Q08 [My headline]
In the 4th Quarter of 2007, our campaign raised $23.5 million — over $22.5 million of which is for the primary election. In that quarter, we added 111,000 new donors for a total of 475,000 donors in 2007. [Emphasis mine]
In the first 8 days of 2008, we raised over $8 million and gained 35,000 new donors. Since midnight last night, we have raised another $500,000 online. We continue to build a grassroots movement that makes us best-positioned to compete financially in the primaries and caucuses coming up.
Hypocrites Punditocrats will all claim that this fund-raising success equates to a mandate from the people, that Obama is ascendant, and that the American electorate is turning the page on the racial strife that characterized much of the previous centuries of American politics. Oh, and the Republicans are on their way out. Certainly, the raw numbers support these conclusions:
-
Absolute numbers of state voters in both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary greatly favor the Democrats, implying more popular support for the Democrats than for the Republicans
-
Iowa: 239,000 (D); 120,000 (R)
-
New Hampshire: 287,821 (D); 238,850 (R)
-
Michigan: 592,798 (D); 867,136 (R) [This one is an obvious anomoly: between non-participants encouraging Dems to vote for Romney, and the probability that many Dems didn't vote because it doesn't count, these numbers are likely skewed]
-
-
“Money talks,” and you know the rest, so compare the dollars [4Q07], for the ones who have reported to date:
-
Democrats: Clinton(≈$20M), Edwards (?), Gravel (?), Obama ($23.5M), Kucinich (?), Richardson(?)
-
Republicans: Giuliani (? — but we know he’s ailing), Huckabee (≈$5M), Hunter (?), McCain (?), Paul ($19.6M), Romney ($20.8M, but you can bet most of it came from him — again), Thompson (?)
-
-
National polls [if, after the NH primary, you're intrepid enough to put stock in them] favor an Obama or Clinton presidency (as of this writing) over McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani.
So how could this herald anything other than the Rise of the [admittedly, somewhat racially confused] First Black President? Or, at least, that of the wife of the original First Black President?
Let’s peel back a layer or two, have a look at the inner workings here.
Obama is the MSM odds-on favorite, to the point that the liberal establishment have largely disavowed any belief in or support for Clinton’s candidacy. That’s saying a lot for the “smartest woman on the planet.” It also should say something about who has been appointed to be our next Chief Executive.
So is it really all that impressive that a guy who has all the force of the MSM behind him should be able to rassle up contributions into the high seven figures in a week? He’s a good-looking guy, he’s a very good public speaker… and don’t forget, he’s the first real contender [I said, real contender] to be the First Black President, so all the multi-culti-diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity lemmings are rallying behind him. [Word of warning: people who stand up to the Clintons usually die] Of course, Clinton does have the name recognition, and all that entails. But more people use words like “shrill” and “polarizing” to describe her than the freshman Senator from Illinois, to whom the moniker “fresh” or “exciting” may be more liberally applied. [One thing that confounds me: how do all the PC-or-die nutjobs choose between a black candidate and a female one? Which one trumps the other?]
Oh, yeah. And Obama gets a whole friggin’ lot of free advertising from the media, too [while they sweep less savory items under the rug]. Shouldn’t there be a campaign finance reform law passed about that? 
Among the Rich-Fat-Old-White-Men’s party, there is a guy who’s been riding a grassroots movement that has had little, if any, direct input or control from his actual campaign. Usually, if he gets any media attention, it’s to chase down red herrings or promulgate a ad hominem smear campaign against him. None of it actually sticks, and they have to keep recycling the same stories and making the same inflammatory claims, but it just doesn’t work. A man of unassailable character and integrity, he forces the conversation back to the issues.
You can disagree with him on principle: you may prefer large governmental bureaucracies whittling away at your rights and liberties; you may want to pay high taxes into an inefficient and increasingly unaccountable system, in support of policies with which you do not agree; you may enjoy seeing American sovereignty eroded and being supplanted by international bodies such as the UN, who have little love for American values and American heritage; you may like the idea of America slowly sliding into the dubious distinction of being the first truly international, post-nation-state polity.
But you can’t impeach his consistency; he’s been saying the same thing about smaller government, less intrusiveness and regulation, and more liberty, since he entered public life three decades ago. That’s a pretty high bar for a Congressman, or any “public servant,” for that matter, most of whom change their core beliefs more often than I change my underwear.
And where is the media coverage of this bastion of liberty, this champion of the American citizen over the special interests, this selfless prince of principle, this tireless Everyman?
[...]
The fact is, [in the minds of the MSM] Ron Paul was a punchline when his campaign collected $5 million for 3Q07, most of it in the last week of September. He was a back-page story when his “fringe” campaign beat that effort in one day on November 5th. He gained only passing mention on December 16th, when his campaign took in more in one day than any candidate in US history [which record was previously held by Sen. John Kerry... after he'd won the Democrat nomination]. The $19.6 million referenced above puts Paul squarely in the “big deal” category, since it’s unlikely that and other GOPer will match it. Though the Dems have been soundly defeating the GOPers in donations each quarter, Paul has put himself into the same league as the Dem front-runners.
And Paul has managed this while having to talk over Giuliani and McCain giggling during his debate answers, being pilloried by drive-by commenters who don’t know what Wikipedia is, being asked about whack-job supporters while others were given actual questions to answer, or even being completely cut out of the conversation altogether.
The bitter irony in this race for President is people buying the rhetoric over the records [Dissenters, note: I challenge anyone to show me a single instance of actual difference between any of the other top GOPers and any of the top Dems. Not in their campaign promises, the "issues" lists on their websites, but actual, measurable difference in their actions. It's easy to say you're different. It's much more difficutlt to establish a long-standing record of actually being different]. All of the GOP candidates (save one) are paying lip service to American security, a stronger economy, conservative values, and more individual liberty. And they are apparently finding their marks, mostly. The one guy who actually represents positive change, who has a decades-long public record of anti-establishment, pro-American voting, is being intentionally sidelined. [Props to Hunter and his supporters, but the man is simply not getting traction. I'll give him that he's right on immigration and most other domestic issues, but he's wrong – like his five companions – on a lot, too. Like this hegemonic war. Besides, his treatment is different: Hunter's simply not mentioned; he's not attacked incessantly for character flaws that just don't exist, he's not painted as a wild-eyed lunatic]
So which is the more admirable achievement? The media darling who rakes in money simply based on his (or her) notoriety? The mogul multi-millionaire who pads his accounts with his own money? Or the dark horse who’s bringing nothing to the office with him but a lifetime of integrity and honesty, and a total committment to serve the cause of liberty?
