- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama tops $30 million in second quarter
July 01, 2007 4:36 AM
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: A source close to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says his presidential campaign raised more than $30 million during the second quarter, which ended yesterday.
That figure tops Obama's haul during the first quarter of the year, when he reported raising $25.8 million.
Official figures have not yet been released by Obama's rivals for the Democratic nomination, although the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., had said it expected to raise about $27 million during the quarter, and the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., had publicly set a goal of $9 million.
July 1, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (62)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I think part of this is the established Clinton people trying to make Obama the "establishment" canidate so she will be able to blur the lines. The lines of who she gets her money from, and how she championed the war in Iraq as well as the Saddam/9/11 non connection. We need people to make the right decisions at the right time not, if I knew then what I know now. There are many of us out here who knew then what she didn't know then or apparently still doesn't know now. I am all for skepticism of EVERY canidate but calling names and offering no substance does not help any of us raise our country to our supposed ideals.
Posted by: J.Johnson | Jul 1, 2007 12:32:39 PM
Obama was born in 1961, so that means
that he's also a Baby Boomer.
Posted by: Molly | Jul 1, 2007 11:57:10 AM
----
You might be technically correct, but you're culturally wrong.
Those born in 1961 were not particularly aware of Viet Nam, the Kennedy Assasinations, the Beatles, Woodstock, 68 riots and all the rest, except from being hammered about it in the mass media's "anniversary" reports.
Rather, those born between '61 to '65 were more or less left with the refuse of the Boomers. (The age group was originally described in a book called "Generation X," before that term was appropriated by the Boomer's kids.)
Posted by: Ron | Jul 1, 2007 12:34:07 PM
i like obabma, too, but he has very little experience...and keep in mind that every time they do a poll, at least 25% of the populace says they would NEVER vote for a black person. (and i hate to say this, but if the poll is at 25% i'd bet it's really closer to 40%.)
Posted by: Gene | Jul 1, 2007 12:36:33 PM
Okay, Obama. Why is his middle name Husain? Answer: his father was islamic and his conversion to christianity is in question. Put his first and current church affiliation: The minister is a buddy of the Libyan Dictator and has been an honorer visitor to that dictators palace against American Law before the terrorism lable was removed and he regularly preaches anti jewish, and anti white and anti christian messages. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT WHO HATES THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE US, Brittain, and Israel ever elected. Wake up America. We would not put up with any right wing antiblack or Nazi past, or Jim Jones Cultism...why give a pass to Husein?
Posted by: LibSlayer | Jul 1, 2007 12:39:21 PM
Ok, here's my plan:
Al Gore, who endorsed Howard Dean for President in 2004 says he has no compelling reason to run for President, but I think he does. He obviously thought that Howard Dean's place was in the White House. Yet Dean has promised not to run for President in 2008.
However, and work with me here, Dean never said he wouldn't run for VICE President. So clearly the best way to elevate Howard Dean to the Vice Presidency is if Al Gore agreed to be Dean's running mate.
This would rectify two gross political injustices in just one election cycle, leaving the White House to Dean in Twenty Sixteen.
You want the two most qualified people running this country? It doesn't take a street musician to figure it out.
Gore/Dean 08
Posted by: Subway Serenade | Jul 1, 2007 12:44:29 PM
Be very careful everyone if Obama gets in...he will have alot of "favors" to return and the country will not be on an upswing for a very long time. Sure, the Clintons have their "issues" but they are years ahead of Obama in cultivating international relationships that we so desperatley need to fox.
Posted by: ellen | Jul 1, 2007 12:46:08 PM
Actually, Bill W, HRC is unpopular WITH the Dem base. She's a center-right politician using corporate money to pay DC advisors for bad advise. If you vesit lefty blogs, like dailykos.com, you'll see most lefties will show up and vote for HRC, but will work their asses off for Obama or Gore (if he runs). She's most lefties' 4th/5th choice.
Posted by: Nacho Momma | Jul 1, 2007 12:49:18 PM
What is this that Baby Boomers are all for Hillary? I can't stand her.
I am appalled at global warming, Big Pharma, and business, which does not obey the laws that already exist regarding illegals.
The Supreme Court is something else to consider... it is scary what is happening. Campaign financing reform we need more of... not less of. Guess only millionaires have freedom of speech.
Thus far, I'd vote for Obama. HIllary is bought and paid for by Big Pharma and others (she has the most donations from lobbyists) and yeah... the Republicans have nobody I'd consider thus far.
Oh, and Ralph Nader? Can't believe that egotistical nutball is going to run again. He has totally tarnished the consumer legacy he had.
Posted by: Bun | Jul 1, 2007 12:49:48 PM
I don't understand all this "anybody but Clinton" stuff. She is intelligent, well-spoken, and has clear thoughts about what she would do for America. I think it would be great to have a female president, considering all the trouble that testosterone-laden machismo has gotten us into in the recentand not-so recent past. Before you judge her, just listen to her. Read some on her website. Listen to some of her policy statements and speeches. Go Obama- you'll make a terrific VICE-president.
Posted by: Docmark | Jul 1, 2007 12:51:36 PM
Would like to see Obama/Clark.
Posted by: Earvolution | Jul 1, 2007 12:51:41 PM
Gene, Please get your facts straight. The percentage is ONLY 5% (so 5% of all Americans wwouldnt vote for a black person). 7% said that they wouldnt vote for a Jew. And about 24% said that they wouldnt vote for a Mormon. Besides that, Barack Obama is half white and half black.
Posted by: DNC | Jul 1, 2007 12:52:41 PM
Hillary comment about HIV during the past debate was a shameful at best. The first aid victims were the guy white communities and the white women should have been a victime of HIV if they were not careful to their life. What does to do with the white poeple or Federal Gov't about spreading HIV in the black communities? Why is the black women are a victime Of HIV? Does Hillary think the spread of HIV in black communities are responsible by the Fed. Gov't? HIV can hit anyone so long he or she is not very careful his/her sexual activities. No one infected HIV intentionaly to any group.
Hillary is the most shameful and lier who can say and do anything to a certain group to gain to her advantage at anytime.
If Hillary was very concerned about black people why she did not go to Rwanda when she was in the white house when about a million people killed? When she send all her available mighty arm to Kosovo to save people had the same problem as Rwanda? Hillary and Bill are the most recist but phony manupulator people ever seen.
If Hillary was real concern about minority people, why she made $6 million dollars outsourcing their real jobs to India? Why she did not answer when she was asked job resourcing?
Posted by: Lee kim | Jul 1, 2007 12:53:38 PM
THIS WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT WHO HATES THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE US, Brittain, and Israel ever elected. Wake up America.
-----
Nah, I'm pretty sure Bush hates the country and the people of the U.S.
I mean, he can't be this bad by accident, can he?
Posted by: BB | Jul 1, 2007 12:59:34 PM
Correction. 1:00:22 meant for DNC
Posted by: V | Jul 1, 2007 1:01:42 PM
hillary can win the primary but she'll lose the general election.
obama can lose the primary but will win the general election
Posted by: jason | Jul 1, 2007 1:09:27 PM
the real race for president is between clinton and obama? a republican can't win? if i were a foolish liberal, like many of you, i would climb down off my high horse and check those swing state numbers again. forget that rudy wins the majority of national polls, giuliani is also ahead in almost every important swing state against a democrat. pitted against clinton or obama, rudy is up in nj and florida big, up in PA and ohio, and leading in mich. and conn., and is within striking distance in cali. and ny. if i were a liberal i would focus less on when and how hillary will beat obama, because she will, and more on how to help some 'suthernah' like farmer fred get the nomination, because if rudy gets it, the dems are in trouble.
Posted by: matt | Jul 1, 2007 1:10:07 PM
there must be a reason why there have only been two senators in the past 100 years voted in a president.
that's because senators are incredibly unqualified because the senate does nothing os any consequence.
if any senator dem/repub attempted the white house they would be so overwhelmed it might take them two years to recover from the shock.
first statement will be the standard:
"i had no idea it was this bad".
plus none of the candidates are very smart.
it used to said that the senate is where presidential ambitions go to die.
the obama/clinton/thompson/gingrich are all media creations from CNN/NBC/CBS.
if dems want to win they will have to nominate al gore/richardson.
if repubs want to lose nominate guiliani.
obama: qualified for senate job? no clue he hasn't been there long enough.
what has he ever run? a voting drive.
how will he run the pentagon? or food stamps?
thompson: he's a quitter.
clinton: no experience doing anything but arguing before the mrdia that bill's an innocent man. oh yesh and being on the wal-mart board of directors and fixing edd-jooh-kay-shun in arkansas. that worled well.
Posted by: bigdawg169 | Jul 1, 2007 1:12:06 PM
OBAMA is reaching out to those who have historically felt underrepresented, ignored or not interested in more of the same candidates who promise and don't deliver. He is raising piles of money from individual donors putting their money where they feel inspired by a real possibility for change, and for a person they trust and in whom they recognize an inate wisdom.
Posted by: John McD | Jul 1, 2007 1:14:48 PM
LibSlayer, you are such a hatemonger resorting to a scare tactic.This might work among other hatemongers, but not with everyone in our country. The good news (bad news for you) is that most Americans are open minded, and will not fall for such idiotic characterizations. You can debate about a presidential candidate's credentials rather than his/her name and outright lies. BTW, Obama has everythig it takes to be a great US President! Maybe that's what knocks a daylight out some bigots.
Posted by: plyjoe | Jul 1, 2007 1:15:35 PM
all of the mainstream candidates are media creations.
these are the players the media has set up for the foolish citizens.
none of these candiates have any credentials. what have any of them ever acomplished?
that really is the question. most have been very nice to "WOLF BLITZER". why? because he produces/directs this puppet show. a TWO year campaign. think we need to start looking at '12 elections.
appooint blitzer and skip the elections.
doesn't make any difference who wins.
should have a contest with testing. which candidate is the dumbest?
Posted by: bigdawg169 | Jul 1, 2007 1:24:36 PM
Post a comment



