Barack Obama won the 2008 election because he and his campaign were very good. They were also a bit lucky in that their campaign was floundering when the economy began its melt-down. But luck, in this case, was where opportunity opportunity met capability. Plus it did not hurt that the Obama campaign cheated when it came to fundraising. Nevertheless, you have to give Sen. Obama and his campaign their due -- they ran a very good campaign and capitalized on the opportunities given to them.
A key reason Sen. Obama won, in my opinion, is that he put forth a positive message. Ironically, I'm reminded of the campaign results of Ronald Reagan. Both Reagan and Obama ran campaigns where they talked about what they would do as President and their messages were simple but powerful messages. In both cases, the result was not just the election of a President but a shift in power in Congress.
Sen. Obama's campaign was very good, particularly when the economy went into the tank. They seemed to do best when they were running against a catastrophe -- in the Primaries it was the War in Iraq, and in the General Election it was the Economy. In each case, the Obama campaign put together messages around what their candidate would do to make things better. Sure he made outrageous promises but he at least responded. The McCain people did not.
It could be said that if it were not for the disastrous turn taken by the economy, the election results would have been different. Prior to that event, Sen. Obama's campaign was floundering. The War in Iraq was turning into a US victor, so Sen. Obama's promise to withdraw was turning into a promise to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Nevertheless, the Obama campaign organization, coupled with the amount of money they raised -- much by dubious means -- probably would have carried the day anyway. The Obama did a remarkable job of giving their supporters an opportunity to volunteer and participate. Republicans have long stopped relying on volunteers and fallen back on advertising. The Obama campaign was relentlessly calling every Democrat and every contributor asking them to participate on Election Day. The Obama campaign was well organized and had specific jobs for every person who offered to help.
As for my comment about the Obama fundraising, this is really disturbing. Unfortunately, the Democrats now have a significant lock on Congress and the Media is worshipping at the feet of Barack Obama. So we have to hope this does not turn out badly.
The point here is that if you believe it is important to know who is giving money to candidates and that the amount any one person can give should be limited, then the Obama campaign set a very dangerous precedent. The Obama campaign allowed contributors to give money by credit card, which is not new. What is new is that they turned off all the safety controls around the use of credit cards. For example, they either did not ask for or they did not verify the address of the contributor or any of the other information that is typically required to prove that you are who you say you are when you give money. They also seemed to turn off internal auditing controls around who gave how much.
That means the Obama campaign could have received donations well over the campaign limits from a specific individual. For example, one investigation shows that a person with the last name Good, first name Will (e.g. Good Will) gave almost $10,000 to the Obama campaign. First that is well over the limit for giving and second how can any independent reviewers know who that person is.
Did someone in the Obama campaign coach people to give money this way in order to exceed or circumvent the campaign financing laws? Well since the Democrats control Congress and the White House, we'll never know.
Are you skeptical that such a bad thing could have happened? Well in the 1970's, President Richard Nixon's campaign was the reason for many of the tighter campaign control laws. President Nixon was a real scumbag of a person and his campaign used some pretty unsavory means of raising money. In the 1990's, Communist China gave significant amounts of money to the campaign of President Bill Clinton (who does not smell like roses himself). Of course these contributions were illegal -- foreign countries are not supposed to donate money. This was done via a front man who funneled the money from China to various individuals who then wrote checks. Did President Clinton or any of the people on his campaign do anything wrong? There is no evidence of that. However, the person who was the front man for all of this money had tremendous access to the Clinton White House for many years.
The Obama campaign raised $150 million in the last three months of the campaign. Almost $100 million dollars of that amount was via credit card contributions. Is that important? Well, I refer back to my initial questions -- is it important to you that the public can see who is contributing money to campaigns and that people are restricted in how much they give? If so, then you have to worry about what just happened.
The result of all of this was a historic election that we can hope will not end up in infamy.
This is the end of the Election 2008 articles. Now on to policy issues and fun stuff.
Until next time, be well.
A key reason Sen. Obama won, in my opinion, is that he put forth a positive message. Ironically, I'm reminded of the campaign results of Ronald Reagan. Both Reagan and Obama ran campaigns where they talked about what they would do as President and their messages were simple but powerful messages. In both cases, the result was not just the election of a President but a shift in power in Congress.
Sen. Obama's campaign was very good, particularly when the economy went into the tank. They seemed to do best when they were running against a catastrophe -- in the Primaries it was the War in Iraq, and in the General Election it was the Economy. In each case, the Obama campaign put together messages around what their candidate would do to make things better. Sure he made outrageous promises but he at least responded. The McCain people did not.
It could be said that if it were not for the disastrous turn taken by the economy, the election results would have been different. Prior to that event, Sen. Obama's campaign was floundering. The War in Iraq was turning into a US victor, so Sen. Obama's promise to withdraw was turning into a promise to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Nevertheless, the Obama campaign organization, coupled with the amount of money they raised -- much by dubious means -- probably would have carried the day anyway. The Obama did a remarkable job of giving their supporters an opportunity to volunteer and participate. Republicans have long stopped relying on volunteers and fallen back on advertising. The Obama campaign was relentlessly calling every Democrat and every contributor asking them to participate on Election Day. The Obama campaign was well organized and had specific jobs for every person who offered to help.
As for my comment about the Obama fundraising, this is really disturbing. Unfortunately, the Democrats now have a significant lock on Congress and the Media is worshipping at the feet of Barack Obama. So we have to hope this does not turn out badly.
The point here is that if you believe it is important to know who is giving money to candidates and that the amount any one person can give should be limited, then the Obama campaign set a very dangerous precedent. The Obama campaign allowed contributors to give money by credit card, which is not new. What is new is that they turned off all the safety controls around the use of credit cards. For example, they either did not ask for or they did not verify the address of the contributor or any of the other information that is typically required to prove that you are who you say you are when you give money. They also seemed to turn off internal auditing controls around who gave how much.
That means the Obama campaign could have received donations well over the campaign limits from a specific individual. For example, one investigation shows that a person with the last name Good, first name Will (e.g. Good Will) gave almost $10,000 to the Obama campaign. First that is well over the limit for giving and second how can any independent reviewers know who that person is.
Did someone in the Obama campaign coach people to give money this way in order to exceed or circumvent the campaign financing laws? Well since the Democrats control Congress and the White House, we'll never know.
Are you skeptical that such a bad thing could have happened? Well in the 1970's, President Richard Nixon's campaign was the reason for many of the tighter campaign control laws. President Nixon was a real scumbag of a person and his campaign used some pretty unsavory means of raising money. In the 1990's, Communist China gave significant amounts of money to the campaign of President Bill Clinton (who does not smell like roses himself). Of course these contributions were illegal -- foreign countries are not supposed to donate money. This was done via a front man who funneled the money from China to various individuals who then wrote checks. Did President Clinton or any of the people on his campaign do anything wrong? There is no evidence of that. However, the person who was the front man for all of this money had tremendous access to the Clinton White House for many years.
The Obama campaign raised $150 million in the last three months of the campaign. Almost $100 million dollars of that amount was via credit card contributions. Is that important? Well, I refer back to my initial questions -- is it important to you that the public can see who is contributing money to campaigns and that people are restricted in how much they give? If so, then you have to worry about what just happened.
The result of all of this was a historic election that we can hope will not end up in infamy.
This is the end of the Election 2008 articles. Now on to policy issues and fun stuff.
Until next time, be well.
Comments