Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think it's smart.

up since, at least directly. I'm wondering if that's because they are still getting set up, or if they won't be getting around to doing direct appeals at all. They do have a fundraising thread on the Clark blog.

But repeated money grubbing would be a turnoff for me.

but I got on the draft clark mailing list and received a quarter end request today.

As far as the original post. I can understand the feelings about it, I can see how it would be offputting... but it is mostly at quarter end... and we really are facing quite a fundraising machine in *. It truly is going to take money to win. Plus it's just another measure of the candidates support IMO... and we like to see our candidate supported.

Maybe I got lost in the shuffle somehow. Unlucky me :-)

Where did it come from? What is its significance? Just curious.

I could find, so I used it. It really doesn't have any signifigance, except that putting their pictures on money is one way the country has of honoring great Americans ;-)

What is that?

Does it mean something to you?

Up until 1933, there were bills called "Gold Certificates". Paper money, but redeemable at full face value IN GOLD COIN. If you knew that, you'd know that's Clark's face on a $20 gold certificate.

what does it have to do with Clark?

Does he advocate one?

Does he want to bring back the cover clause?

What does it mean?

The poster explained that he MADE the image (using a Photoshop-type program) and used "the best image of money I could find" (which apparently was a $20 gold certificate). Don't look for meaning where there is none.

Reform is needed so that not only the uber-rich can run. McCain was right!
Gee, isn't all American culture about the dollar? That stinks and needs to be changed.
That's what runaway capitalism gets you.

a candidate's strength should evolve from his stance on issues - not on his campaign funds. Tom Carper won here in DE becuase of his stance - he won against an incumbent - Roth - Carper had a history in DE.

to support one of the candidates. Truth is they need the money I suppose. Perhaps, they'll put it to use by addressing the issues.

I was thinking about Dean but after the last Dem debate, I felt he took Geppy's remark out of context and over-reacted. So, question, Pete, should I not give to Kerry's campaign? I've already asked Will for the # or site to contact. I will most likely look into it tomorrow.

http://www.johnkerry.com/

There is a recorded THANKYOU today. Once you sign up, you will get emails. I've contributed on the site twice now.

when we as Dems make money-raising the centerpiece of our drive to the White House, then we lose sight of the issues that matter

Some others have said that before.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Candidates know that money means contention...if they don't hawk for it, they don't get into the "game"

Why do YOU think that should be different? They're all hoping for money (except Kerry who is able to self-finance)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

declasse.

Even more than before, we seem to be issue- and content- free zones. Now it's all about how much money each side is willing to put down on their racehorse while we predicting the outcome. None of the reporters seem interested in what actual policies, proposals are. It's all spin and money. And, from past experience, we KNOW that money does NOT guarantee success in the primaries. But it creates the aura of invincibility to the media that carried * past McCain and through the theft.

It drove me CRAZY when the political reporters claimed that Labor Day (the year BEFORE an election) was the "traditional kickoff" for campaigns. Yes, that's true, but it has always BEFORE referred to the Labor Day before November's election.

We used to take elections seriously as the prelude to enacting policies. Now it's all about politics all the time. Policy is too hard to discuss and so they have to ignore it and focus on the superficialities of politics.

:puke:

That's right. What has happened is the dumbing down of the reporters themselves. And the general reduction of the amount of time a reporter gets to spend on a story, or the number of reporters allowed to work on a single story.

It's so much easier to talk about money raised and he-said/she-said sniping. An article on policy would take too much work.

.

Giving someone your money is making a commitment to them. People are interested in issues as well, but as one who has raised tens of thousands in my state.. I can honestly tell you..the person paying money and participating in the process is reading the fine print a bit harder when the policy starts passing...for too long..the folks up at the top have been paying the money and vetting the fine print.

Money = commitment.

On edit: That's NOT to say that there aren't other forms of commitment such as time and action..ok? Just clarifying the role of the small donation that comes in increment versus the HUGE donations...and what THEY do with that.

I really don't see it as a bad thing.

Let us have our fun.

Woo hoo!!!

This is the way campaign funding is supposed to work; lots of little people instead of a smaller number of fat cats. I would think people would be pleased to see what's possible for a candidate who isn't rolling in dough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

between citizen and corporate donors - with a heavy influence of the citizens - then so be it. I can deal with the irritating tone at the end of the quarter. Its a small price.

There was a news item about how much the candidates would likely raised and compared it to Bush. At first it was a depressing disparity - but as someone pointed out - if one added all the dem campaigns together and compared it to bush - very competitive numbers. Then realize that most of bush is corporate 2,000 dinner types, and much of the dems is individual smaller donors - but a ton of them... That is a very good sign.

It will be over in a few hours.

Other candidates (you know who you are) have not.

But for the followers type, I think it's a good gimmick. Personally, the bat thing makes me think of pavlovian conditioning, but it seems to work with certain personality types, like followers.

that is just sad.

who can't find enough fatcats to make up for the fact that they pissed off their base by meekly enabling the BFEE.

Here's the new model:

4 million people giving an average of $50 each. That's the new campaign finance reform. People power will defang our fatcat corporate masters, and you Party elitists can just sit back and watch something called DEMOCRACY unfold!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WAKE THE FUCK UP AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!

IF YOUR CANDIDATE ISN'T INSPIRING GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY ---

MOVE TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

why are so many people sending in such small amounts to raise as much cash as the bigcat doners...

I can see why the elites would be scared. They spent alot of cash to buy off this party and the idea that millions of Democrats are willing to send in small amounts each would make them irrelavant...

And may I say to the originator of this sorry, maybe even SICK thread: what a pathetic excuse for an excuse to post another Dean-bashing thread.

Good GOD, people. Don't pretend money doesn't matter in a campaign. If you don't like Dean's bat, don't fucking go there. If you don't like Dean's very few requests for contributions, don't fucking sign up on his list. If you don't like DEAN, quit paying attention to him.

I would think DUers would be celebrating to HIGH FUCKING HEAVEN that there is a candidate who is absolutely revolutionizing campaign fundraising by taking it out of the hands of corporate interests -- and also, I might add, raising the bar on SUBSTANCE and fundability AND electability because you DON'T get tons of money from every day people who've NEVER contributed before by being Mr. Ho Hum from Washingtum.

GET A CLUE, people. This is for real. It's not a game. It's not a popularity contest. It's not about sniffily asking your stupid little oh-so-innocent-sounding little Dean-bashing questions. This is the Big Leagues and Dean is winning by doing something no other candidate can do. Big time.

Get over it. Then get a clue.

Eloriel

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

record breakingly successful fundraising efforts will definitely be your insider pro-establishment Democrat ticket to the White House.

God knows it worked so well in 2002.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

parade?

Is there some rule that says that your candidate HAS to run a paint-by-the-numbers safety-first traditional top-down wine-and-dine-the big-money campaign?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It being John Kerry's candidacy's funeral and all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't see any issue differences between Dean and Kerry that concern me.

And I see a whole lot about Kerry's crassly opportunist and utterly moronic Iraq miscalculation, nuanced meanderings, campaign, fundraising prowess, preferred donors, policy and campaign advisors, patrician demeanor, I-am-owed attitude, communication skills and penchant for playing it both safe and close to the vest that do concern me.

But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support him as the nominee. And I do appreciate the fact that he's had a long and distinguished Democratic Senatorial career.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to John Kerry's war vote and then maybe you'll get a clue.
And no, it's not a game.

I was about to agree with Pete, and share my experience as a Clark supporter. I am getting the same pleas for money and it is a bit of a turn off sometimes, when I would rather read the message first and then the request for $ at the end. I've gotten the same from Dean after I signed up my email address at a meet-up here.

But I digress.. I think every post I have read from you, since I came back here about two weeks or so ago, has been venom. You need to lighten up. So do a lot of other people, but at least you obviously put a lot of passion into your beliefs and intelligent thought as well, but its incredible how absolutely angry you sound most of the time. After the primaries, we're all gonna have to pull together, whether behind Dean or whoever, but I'm not sure I want to stand side by side with some people just rip into others at the drop of a dime.

Now the question is will this post be answered with more venom, or not be answered at all? For the record I'd prefer the latter to the former.

I don't think anger sells well in most of America, and it's one major thing I find to be a turn-off with Dean.

and all his supporters who are willing to let him have his way.

Because if you could point me toward it, I'd be happy to take the torch up to convince Dean to reconsider.

BECAUSE I CAN, because I support a candidate who LISTENS. And not just to paid consultants.

When does the fish-hook get removed? Doesn't it hurt?

Just less cynical. All things are relative.

I know half of Dean's campaign is manipulation.

I'm just happy that I don't think all of it is.

...it's how the fundraising is done that scares the entrenched so much. It changes the dynamic completely. Look at Bush, $5mil in a day for blatantly whoring himself. Dean does $5mil in 10 days, but he's the people's ho ;) And that sense of being "personally invested" in politics is one of the reasons for the Dean campaigns success, some might say one of the most important reasons.

that was back when grassroots candidacies were more authentic.

the problem is that money is necessary to run a competetive campaign. Without it a campaign can't do the necessary things it must do if it wants to win.

Then we may as well forget about the issues.

being too far ahead of the other candidates
in money. I don't think it's fair and I don't
like it and I am real put off. I think he should
give some to the others to level things up.

seriously. :)

but that's not what we have. We have a process that takes forever, follows different rules in all 50 states, and results in sending our nominee against an unchallenged incumbent with a $200 million war chest.

When the process is reformed to make sense and operate on public money, elections will be more palatable. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

want to make a serious race of it. Once the campaigns begin in earnest, they will be more issue focused.

I don't like it either, but a modern day political campaign is nothing less than an advertising/PR/marketing blitz. A candidate's ideas, regarding "the issues that matter," don't amount to a hill of beans if the public is not exposed to them.

As a advertising professional, I assure you... It's gonna take A LOT of money to win in 2004.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A message is an essential ingredient too, but one needs to have organization and/or fundraising to win elections.

Auctions are decided by money. Elections should be decided on the issues.

The ruling class wants us to conflate the two. They win that way.

a piece?

We have the power to compete -- in money, in grassroots organization and especially in message -- if we just realize that we do.

No presidential Democratic candidate will ever out finance the Republican candidate. Big money considers donating to Republicans an investment because they get their money back in tax cuts and lax regulations.

I.e., if we can't outdo the GOP in the money department, then in what way is the ability to raise money important? Stickdog is trying to tell us that Dean's money-raising ability makes him clearly the best candidate. But if it's about money at all, then we're already screwed. And if it's not about money, then why bring it up? Is it a 'it's important if and while it helps my argument, but not otherwise' kind of thing?

empowering his ever expanding volunteer staff and running a responsive, bottom up, interactive, iterative, open source, grassroots campaign is our best current hope to transfer power from the mil/intel/corporate/political oligarchy that currently rules our country with an iron fist to an actual system at least slightly resembling a true democracy.

The fact that so many informed people are clenching their minds closed to something this obvious is profoundly disturbing.

Are you saying he's not so hot, but his campaign model is great? What I've thought I've been hearing from you is Dean's great because his campaign model is great. That's not what you're saying?

.

That's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

It would be so much better if the candidates would just meet up with some corporate fat-cats every once in a while and scoop up $2000 a head.

All this hitting up of the masses is terrible. I mean next thing you know the little people with think they have a say in things!! Where are the Borgias when you need 'em??

sarcasm off

Realistic answers are needed in the real world. You got any better ideas?

Julie--who feels the "telethon" stuff is only quarter-end stuff and a small price to pay to take our country back

Roth had TWICE the campaign chest of Carper. Money helps, but it is not the primary backbone of a campaign - issues are. Carper worked hard to win.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/21/senate.2000/delaware.senate/

http://www.sussexcountyonline.com/news/eric/700/71800.html

Roth has also built a power base that has proven to be a great boon to Delawareans, whereas Gov. Carper would be starting from scratch.

http://www.sussexcountyonline.com/campaign2000/results/

In a mild surprise, Thomas R. Carper unseated long-time incumbent Bill Roth. With all 403 districts reporting, Carper had 55.5 percent of the vote to Roth's 43.7 percent. The networks used exit polling data to make their projections

This is for supporters. Just skip the threads that deal with it is my advice. By the way it is a good deal different than that. This is a grass roots movement which has broken records for fund raising--from average donations of less than $100. No we have not lost sight of what we have to do or what the election is about we get plenty of that too.

a lot of money, and if we're going to oust Bush, we need money. Which is better - money from supporters, or money from special interests?

If you believe in supporting a candidate, a church,
a charity...whatever for the betterment of a situation,
you give from the resources of your life.

I'd rather have a candidate supported by lots of
people giving smaller donations and being part of the
process than one or two huge donors who do it for
business sake.

If your argument is the way this is being done, that's
fair, but it's just good marketing frankly.

The DNC hopefully is taking notes on how Dean is
doing this, so when the Dem nominee is chosen,
they can do the same thing.

As Martha would say, this is a good thing.

...we cannot unilaterally disarm in the money race. BushCo will have $200 million to wage a relentless, vile, negative air war against the Democratic nominee as soon as he emerges.

Like it or not, Rove's saturation advertising campaign will take $40 or $50 million to counter.

Issues DO NOT MATTER IN A CAMPAIGN!!!!

Campaigns are about personality, issues are irrelevant in a campaign and the man who campaigns on the issues LOSES!!!

Why are people here so obtuse???

Good fundraising doesn't guarantee success, but poor fundraising guarantees failure.

Also, you have to LOVE how Dean's millions come in averaging under $100.00 per contributor. That speaks volumes. Any politician, especially one currently holding office, can rake in the $2,000 checks, but to attract so many people the way Dean has.

The message is loud and clear!

I'm a bit put off by the televangelist - empowerment - send me money - aura of it.

But waking people up to the idea that many small donations can make a difference has been great. Dean will always get the credit for that and it could make all the difference in 2004.

I don't like it. But it HAS to be done. And since it HAS to be done it should come from regular folks instead of corporate fat cats. The less dependent our candidates are on corporate fat cats, the more reponsive they'll be to regular people.

I'm not put off one tiny bit by the telethon-like atmonsphere of this campaign.

Surely there are a million dems angry enough to give $200! The smaller contribs will be gravy. Yummy!