elections 2008

With all of his historical advantages, what explains his relatively poorer performance?

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

The numbers for the fundraising of Democratic Presidential candidates in the first quarter of 2007 have now been released, and John Edwards has raised less money than both front-runners Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton raised $26 Million dollars, not counting the ten million she was able to transfer from her Senate campaign to her presidential campaign.

The New York Times reports today that Barack Obama has raised $20,000,000, and “his fund-raising prowess has helped make him the chief rival to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.” In Obama’s past Senate campaign, says the New York Times, “Even as he cultivated an image as an unconventional candidate devoted to the people, not the establishment, he systematically built a sophisticated, and in many ways quite conventional, money machine,” building “from the ground up”. NYT

The reasons for Clinton’s historical fundraising levels are well-known. She is a major national player in the Democratic Party, was first lady for eight years, has been elected to the US Senate twice, and her husband was President of the United States twice. Many people donate to her campaign because they believe in her policies and they believe she is most likely to win the nomination.

Barack Obama is able to raise $20 Million in the first three months of his first presidential bid because there is tremendous public excitement about the new vision he offers and the outstanding qualities of the man himself, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who became the school’s first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then became the only Black member of the US Senate. He has an extraordinary personal story and two best-selling books to support his campaign.

But, the question must be asked, “Why has John Edwards, who ran for President in 2004 and became the Democratic nominee for Vice President, only raised $15 Million dollars in the first quarter, which is 25% less than Barack Obama and almost 50% less than Hillary Clinton? The Fix, WaPost

The difference cannot be explained by name recognition, since Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, while Obama has never been on a national ticket. If Edwards still had lower name recognition than Barack Obama at this point, a negative inference would have to be drawn about Edwards’ relative ability to draw the public’s attention and generate enthusiasm about his campaign. Certainly, America knows who Edwards is.

Their presence on the Internet would not seem to explain John Edwards’ inability to raise the sums that his competitors raised either. John Edwards’ website has been up longer and contains more links to social networking sites, so he does have exposure on the Internet. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post calls the Edwards website an “exercise in social networking that includes not only a blog, where surfers can post their thoughts, but also cyber-diaries written by Edwards's family members.” WaPost But, Slashdot.Org says Edwards’ website is “a bit of a disorganized mess . . . [and] The Edwards campaign needs to hire a professional web designer (or fire the one they have).

Indeed, ZDNET says:

Clinton’s early, Web-based campaign announcement helped catapult the Clinton campaign to “number one” presidential campaign Web site status honors in January 2007. The Clinton online effort booked a commanding Web site traffic lead over the second place Obama campaign Web site and attracted almost twice the number of visitors as the John Edwards campaign Web site, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.

Number one HillaryClinton.com drew 828,000 unique visitors in January.

In fact, John Edwards’ attempts to dominate the Internet game have led to his biggest online embarrassment. The John Edwards anti-religious blogger scandal hurt him badly, because it raised doubts about his political judgment and acumen. It may well have left Americans doubting John Edwards’ respect for religious people and/or his ability to manage a successful campaign and the country.

One might have thought that, as a candidate who is both white and male, John Edwards might have been expected to come into the race with an advantage, based on biased perceptions of who could win and whose gender or color would make them ineligible. This might have been expected particularly because there has never been a woman or Black president of the United States.

But, to the extent that there are still gender and skin-color biases within the Democratic Party, John Edwards does not seem to have benefited sufficiently from them to move him into the top ranks of the rain-makers.

The difference in fundraising ability also cannot be explained by time spent campaigning, since Edwards has been a full-time candidate since 2004, while Clinton and Obama have had to campaign while contending with their Senate responsibilities. But Clinton and Obama have campaigned while maintaining the prominence that comes with still being a responsible member of the US Senate. Having entered the US Senate in 1998 and run for the presidency and vice presidency, Edwards certainly has had more opportunity than Obama to draw national attention over the years.

John Edwards’ own message may have hurt his fundraising. He says that he is running for president to help the poor, which is mostly comprised of women, minorities and their children, but those groups have expressed little support for Edwards. Supporting John Edwards Supports the Status Quo http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporting-edwards-perpetuat... Meanwhile, voters who are not poor may have concluded that the Edwards campaign has little to offer them. Why Edwards’ Candidacy Won’t Resonate with America http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/202415/98

It seems unlikely that hilarious capturing John Edwards combing his hair for two full minuutes was the fatal blow to his candidacy, but the video may have contributed to an overall impression that Edwards lacks gravitas.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

There's something hideously funny about Newt Gingrich's latest idiotic pronouncement. I think it's his delivery. He obviously knows that what he is saying is inflammatory and absurd, and that its chief "value" is to incite the passions of people who hate Spanish-speaking people as much as they hate the people who live in the "ghetto," which includes many people who are not white and many people who do not speak Spanish.

I think I admire Newt's comic ability. Not everyone can say things he knows are ridiculous with a straight face. It's the irony between the straight face and the ridiculous assertion that causes people to laugh. And laugh we do whenever New Gingrich speaks in public, until we remember that many of our countrymen and women may be taking him seriously.

Lately, I've perceived some anti-immigrant sentiment in unexpected places. I hope this Newt Gingrich video will show everyone that, as far as Newt Gingrich is concerned, all those who have lived in the ghetto and all those who speak Spanish can be insulted as one, no matter where they were born.

Oh. Whoops. I think that just made me an enemy of the state according to those freethinking folks who run Concerned Women for America. When they’re not out trying to get bloggers fired or arguing that no, really, they would never endorse a candidate, they seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking about women’s hoohaws. Their cunts. Their pussies. Their vaginas. (See? That’s how you’re supposed to use those words—to refer to that place of pleasure that women have between their legs.)

So, there’s this group of candidates who are throwing the word “transformation” around. And, then there’s this dire warning about a girl’s transformation zone. The transformation zone, is, of course, a precious thing that all unmarried girls are warned to keep safe from the wandering fingers or tongues or cocks of randy boys. But what’s a girl to do if she really wants to date a candidate who offers her dreams of transformational leadership? Do I have to be married in order to vote? If I’m a virgin, am I excluded from considering these dashing candidates with their naughty talk?