Report: Obama Didn't Have as Many Small Donors as Was Hyped

This is such biased non-analytical thinking! If the cut off is $250 for you to report it as a 'small donor' contribution, then it is time to raise the 'small donor' designation perhaps. Over an 18 month campaign, $1,000 is only about $55/month. Should $55 a month for Obama supporters be lumped in with $10,000 a month contributions? I think not.

The PEOPLE elected Obama, not large donors. It doesn't matter how you spin it for the sore-losing republicans you represent, the educated critical thinking new America knows the real deal.

Sorry Rush (ooops, Jake), your analysis is flawed and obviously wants to slant dum-dum opinion. Instead, why not fight the good fight and ask whether small donors in 2008 should be limited to a $13 a month in order to NOT be considered large donors? Can't even fill your gas tank for a week on $13 to put this in perspective.

He will go back on his word as long as it will get him where he wants to go.

Now Jake why don't you check the donor list and see how many are not even legit and foreign. Was there money laundering going on?

Posted by: countrygirl_74 |
There was no way I would have given 1 dime to this MORON. The way he blew money I could have used some of the millions he blew, OH where is my money he was suppose to help out the little guy with by the way.LOL I never believed a word this guy said, and I still can't believe all the people that fell for him
..............
If this typifies a Republican - it's no wonder you guys lost.

I gave 6 to 8 times. My last donation was $5. My largest donation was $25. I'm self-employed, single, and a full-time non-traditional college student. I think I'm pretty typical of the average Obama supporter.

This is just the first of many lies which will begin to be exposed in the open.

First of all the idea that you could fund a campaign on 5.00 is really not
dealing in reality. The important thing here is it gave folks like us a voice
however small it was. That is more important in the end!I hardly consider
200.00 a big contribution do you?

I have to admit as well that after watching George Bush and his gang of corporate stooges disgrace our highest offices for the last 8 years, listening to these pathetic squeals of sour grapes is most entertaining.

So are wingnuts going to act like crybabies for the next 4 years or what? I love reading the unhinged rants from idiotic talk radio listeners who still can't believe Obama won. I love it!

Once upon a time I was a small doner. Then things got to me and I ended up donating a total of 4 times. There must have been a few of me. I would not call my somewhat over $400 some huge amount. I guess they do though.

There was no way I would have given 1 dime to this MORON. The way he blew money I could have used some of the millions he blew, OH where is my money he was suppose to help out the little guy with by the way.LOL I never believed a word this guy said, and I still can't believe all the people that fell for him

Anna - for most children who have trouble reading, it's the parents who are to blame, not the educational system. Most schools encourage parents to read with youngsters for at least 20 minutes each day, and few follow that guideline. Combine that with the fact that few parents volunteer in the classroom or attend PTO meetings or school board meetings and you'll realize that most parents themselves don't value education or even care how their school board spends money - you can't blame everything on the government. Citizens deserve most of the blame when schools fail.

And just so you know, the US has some of the best schools in the world - people come from all over the world to go to school here. Yes, we have some pretty mis-managed public ones too, but take a look at education in places like Haiti, Cuba or some African nations before you start calling US schools some of the worst in the world.

Attend a school board meeting and look at how they are spending money. Compare that with some of the more creative districts who have found ways to save money and provide better education (hint, it takes a whole community to make a school successful).

If you were relying on Bush to save you you are disappointed. If you are relying on Obama to save you ,you will be disappointed. Government cannot help you . You have to help yourself. That is why I'm a conservative. That is why I don't have major problems and am very happy. Liberals always depend on someone else, such as Katrina victims,that is why they will always be waiting for a savior. Good luck with that!

Posted by: liberalshateAmerica | Nov 25, 2008 5:29:22 PM

Americans do not hate America. But some feel Bush was not even close to being a good president. A democrat was going to win this year no matter what and especially against McCain. It has nothing to do with the media.

Nashville_fan "the rest of us will be trying to SAVE OUR COUNTRY, seeing as it was left in tatters by all the half-baked foreign and domestic policies the Republican party has been trying out on us for the past 7 years and 10 months." --- I'm just wondering, if you believe our country is in tatters, why have you waited to try to save it?? Jump right in and get to work. No need to wait for Obama. There's plenty to be done now and many of us (republicans and democrats) are already working to save it.

The real Bush legacy,
-Not been attacked since 9/11, even though liberals have done EVERYTHING in their power to make us as weak and vulnerable as possible by combatting EVERY piece of anti-terrorist legislation that has been proposed.

Whether it be voting against the Patriot Act, screaming "torture" when we drop water down terrorrists noses, making multiple anti-American "documentares" joe goebelle's style, or simply saying that you have never been proud of your country in your adult life, as bitter Michelle Obama has proudly stated several times, liberals ALWAYS jump to the anti-American position. They extend olive branches to mass murderers but don't hesitate to call Bush "evil".

History will vindicate Bush, who has certainly made mistakes, but overwhelming ran this country on a steady course. He chose to listen to the intelligence around him and not by poll #'s. (polls were overwhelming in favor of doing NOTHING in 1939 to combat hitler).

McCain's inability to expose the dems as robin hood, socialists who have been running around imposing their "spread the wealth around" policies, forcing fannie mae/freddie mac to give loans to people who could never pay them back, and are the real reason our economy is in shambles, is not the fault of Bush.

If the media hadn't abandoned its principles years ago, barry obama would never have been elected.

The claim of those who exceeded the $200 while giving, let's say $10 a month, that they are "small donors" is ridiculous. $1,000 or $500 is $1,000 or $500 no matter how you give it, in tens, fives or $1,000 at a time. The total sum of your contribution is what makes the difference. And yes, this is another lie of Obama's campaign. The funny thing is that I don't understand why Jake is bringing this up now.

Ah, the last hope of the defeated, a nefarious conspiracy!

Since you don't KNOW that anything illegal happened, and you can't PROVE anything illegal happened, you just DREAM that something illegal happened.

Have fun making up stories - the rest of us will be trying to SAVE OUR COUNTRY, seeing as it was left in tatters by all the half-baked foreign and domestic policies the Republican party has been trying out on us for the past 7 years and 10 months.

I hear they have medicine that can greatly reduce paranoid delusional attacks - you all might want to look into that - with your muslim, birth certificate, marxist, wealth sharing nonsense.

Time to grow up folks - we can no longer afford the luxury of listening to your fairytales.

Posted by: mfmros | Nov 25, 2008 4:26:07 PM

Well it was between McCain and Obama. After 8 years of a republican, we wanted to see a dem in the white house. Now that's what I consider change.

The whole point of the $200 limit is that people who contribute less do not have to be identified, which is what they wanted - for these contributors NOT to be identified. I believe a ton of it came from overseas, which is illegal. So no pacs outwardly gave any money, but how do you know? You don't know who contributed if they gave $200 a thousand times using all different names, or using the store bought credit cards that can't be traced. So maybe there were pacs who wrote "donald duck" as the donor. Or worse, maybe they were foreign donations. That really compromises our country. There is a reason these laws are made keeping in check campaign contributions. And how does anyone justify spending over 650 million on a campaign? Thought he was worried about the economy and starving people. And as for his cabinet picks so far, if we had wanted so many of Clinton's people, we would have voted for Clinton.