The Note

well that question is a no brainer. Of course he did. BUT polls show that 60% of voters knew nothing about his stance on anything. They just wanted to be part of "history". What is done is done. The shape our country is in is what should concern us now. Forget DEM. or REP. Everyone is yelling Bush. No, this started with the housing Market, which clinton started. If citizens don't get off the party line, we are headed for disaster.

His donors did. To win now days you need to buy it no matter if you are a rep or dem. Only a very informed public can vote strictly on issues and truth. If people were truly informed Ron Paul or Ralph Nader would win. These elections are all about hype, platitudes, and patronizing.

Nice bit of Republican water toting here ABC. Funny, I don't remember stories like this while Bush was out spending Kerry and Gore. Must only be a problem when Democrats have the advantage.

The GOP just doesn't get it! Obama won, the GOP is fast becoming a Regional Party. Keep it up, and they will marginalize themselves even more.

All presidents bought their presidencies. Obama is no different. Whoever spends most, wins. That formula has a 100% success rate.

make public financing not an option in the primaries nor the election

Obama's supporters sent him the money because we wanted him to win. You got a problem with that? Isn't that what we were supposed to do? Let's face it, the Rethugs are wealthy, corporate greed types, and a dirty tricks bunch besides, so to stop them from totalling "swift-boating" their opponents, Obama had to raise lots and lots of cash. He did it. We supported him. He Won. Bottom Line.

I don't even understand this concept. Unless Obama PAID people to vote for him, there is no way anyone can say that he bought the election. People willingly donated money to his campaign, as I did. The combination of his message, his personality and the personalities of Obama's opponent were the reasons Obama won. If the American people didn't like Obama and couldn't see him running this country better than John McCain, they would have voted McCain.

Barack Obama got all those donations because people believed in him and his abilities. It took that kind of money to beat the Republican cash machine that gave us the likes of GW Bush.

Mr. Rove has seems to have forgotten that when Bush was being elected we were seeing articles asking if the Democrats could ever compete with Republican fund raising? Well Mr. Obama did so now they want to paint it as something negative. Nobody asked if GW (the son of a dynasty with little smarts of his own) paid for the presidency when he out-raised everyone else.

Spin Spin Spin.

Why would Mr. Rove not support a far more sensible, equitable solution to this crippling, systemic, influence whoring for campaign funds? Americans outside the "political class" would be best served by publicly funding all campaigns for Federal office, making ALL campaign contributions illegal except to a generic (not candidate or party specific)Presidential, Senatorial, House, campaign fund. Funds available could be split among qualified candidates for each office, even from third parties. This approach would allow voters to observe how effectively each candidate manages an equal amount of financial resources in the campaign process. Fine-tuning of specific regulations could be done, but the intent of democratic elections will be lost with Mr. Rove's approach, and the "political class of wealth" will further erode America's promise to its citizens and the world.

This Republican gave to Obama, just as I did my vote, he worked hard, and showed better results than McCain.

"60% of the voters knew nothing about his stance on anything?" I'd like to know what poll you are referencing. If it wasn't put out by Zogby, it's pretty much meaningless. Are you sure you weren't talking to a buddy that asked 10 friends? And Karl Rove's statement was pretty funny too. The one thing he didn't mention (perhaps because he didn't know) is that the average donation to the Obama campaign was less than $100 (Washington Post 10/19/08). That number may bump up a little, and I recognize that this doesn't take into account total donations per contributor. But if Obama was this successful with his fundraising, why is there a need to increase the limit from $2300? Finally, I think Obama's decision to not accept public financing is what allowed him to raise the money necessary to fight those vicious smear ads sponsored by some of those 527 organizations. That's not buying an election. That's just being smart.

So the many small donors who sent to him numerous times helped him "buy" an election? Is this the best the Republicans can do? For years, they owned the means and the money to do whatever they damn well pleased. Until now. Face it, they were out-hussled, out-organized, and out-strategized due to growing fat and happy for the last 14+ years and facing an opponent that simply ran circles around them (and HRC, too). They only need look at their own behavior to explain what's been happening to them since 2006.
I was personally very excited to participate in Obama's campaign, albeit only through donations. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way.

It is kind of a chicken or the egg question. Did he win becuase he had lots of money, or did he have lots of money because everyone knew he was going to win?
Since it cannot be proved either way, the answer depends on your political perspective.

Any voter-aged citizen should be able to contribute $25 to any candidate(s) in any election(s) that is/are being held in the district where the individual resides and would pay taxes.

There's something to be said for gauging a candidate's potential for leadership on something like the ability to raise money.

However...
No one else should ever be able to contribute to a candidate if that individual is not going to be represented in Congress by that candidate.

And businesses should not be allowed to contribute to elections -- because businesses can't vote.

All candidates should be allowed to send out their resumes to every registered voter for free.

No political ads should be run by political parties or candidates.

Advocacy groups can run ads, but can only offer their mission statement with contact info, and a list of candidates who support their stated mission.

I have more specific suggestions, but basically my overarching message is...

Get money OUT of politics!
Money is NOT "free" speech.

I was so sick of the election by Nov.4, I was ready to vote in a yellow dog. I have never heard such crap coming from the mouths of both parties. Please cut out the millions and months of campaigning. Obama had it from the start. Everyone wanted to see history made. I am sickened to think what 750 million could had done in this sick economy. Remember, everyone who gave to the campaigns will have their hands in the presidents pockets until they get their due reward.

90% of that money went to FIGHT THE SMEARS by the opposition, and BOY were they NASTY.

DUH!!

This is a no brainer, along with the biased media that did not report accurately for both sides. Alot of misinformed people voted for him and will live to regret it.

What a surprise! What the media has only hinted at is that the Obama campaign sopped up all the money and volunteers.

With the Bush Presidency unpopularity, early predictions had the Dems dumping up to 1/3 of the Republican incumbents. Instead of winning big and wiping out the Republicans in Congress and in the statehouses,the Dems barely made a dent.

What put Obama into the win column was Hillary's endorsement and indefatigable campaigning on his behalf and Obama's unconscionably huge expenditures to sell the American Heartland types on his "kinder, gentler, caring" side. No one voted for his accomplishments - nothing - or his hard work and diligence in Congress - nonexistent. We got promises. Some folks got a savior.

For the good of the country, I can only hope that you all will be as happy in 2 years as you were on Nov. 5. But I doubt it.

Shut up Karl Rove!