Obama Campaign Raises $53 Million, Will Regrettably Use It On Campaigning

[joebaur42]

The amount of good $53 million can accomplish is seemingly immeasurable. Even thinking of what I’d do with that kind of cash if it (legally) fell into my lap crashes my brain like a tainted porno file does your computer (not that I have any experience with this). But unfortunately this $53 million was not raised to help pay for the neighborhood kid’s medical bills, create a treatment center for the poor or providing the depressed with unfettered access to puppies. Instead, it will go to what obscene sums of money usually go to around this time of year. Campaigning.

via MildlyRelevant.com

[babylonsister]

1. Too bad whoever wrote this didn't mention the gazillions the SuperPacs are

introducing, and perhaps lambast SCOTUS and the Citizens United decision.

Yes, it sucks, but this is the way the US does it unfortunately.

[joebaur42]

2. Disappointment with Citiens United goes without saying...

If we find the Obama team bragging about raising obscene sums of cash mockable, we'd have to be the biggest hypocrites in the world to be fine and dandy with Citizens United.

It does suck and it is unfortunate that it's how the US does it. But President Obama campaigned on fundamentally changing how D.C. works. Considering he hasn't been able to change this aspect of D.C. life, perhaps they shouldn't show so much glee at being damned good at working in a broken system. As we said, that's not to say he shouldn't have raised the money since Romney Corp will be spewing money throughout the campaign, but it'd be nice if they showed some tact and regret that they still have to play this way, perhaps mentioning that the Citizens United decision has forced them to play the game in order to compete. Just spit ballin'!

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Glee? Would you rather it was kept secret? Isn't reportage an FEC mandate?

Besides, as a supporter, I want to know how much is raised, and numbers like this attract donors who have been sitting on the fence.

You, nor the o.p., will guilt trip me for what I choose to do with my own money, and I'm gonna bet you'll get the same reaction from the other 97% of <$250 donors. As far as "fundamentally changing how D.C. works", the rules of the game changed, and President Obama didn't make Citizens United the law of the land, the USSC did.

I realize there are forces on the extreme left, and of course the right whose primary goal in life is defeating Pres. Obama, but it won't be for lack of money, there are far too many of us who are committed to ensuring that he's reelected, and that the DNC has the funds it needs to elect Democrats to Congress. Deal with it.

[emulatorloo]

4. Thanks for posting

[joebaur42]

5. Did you read?

Nowhere did we attempt to guilt trip folks for donating and I'd hardly consider us or the piece right-wing inspired or extreme left bent on defeating President Obama. And where did we say they shouldn't report it? We simply said one could show some tact in the fact that the system has only gotten worse, thus requiring $53 million to be raised in one month. For example, "It's unfortunate we have Citizens United and forces working against us that require raising $53 million this past month, but we're glad to see the support for our ideals is still there with the hope we can change these this unconstitutional ruling and the way campaigns are run."

It seems anytime nowadays you moderately criticize someone's candidate, you're suddenly some entity bent on defeating them. There is no candidate better than Obama who has a shot at winning, so our primary goal certainly isn't his defeat. Besides, like anyone would (or should) listen to us!

The point was if you're going to say "We need to fundamentally change things," then you should either act on those words or acknowledge the shortcoming. If I say I'm going to quit smoking, then I should quit. Not pick it back up, because the people I'm surrounded by are smokers and it's too hard to quit.

And while Citizens United is as disheartening as it gets, don't tell me there wouldn't be millions going into this campaign if Citizens United had not passed.

We can have a peaceful discussion without insinuating we're advocating breaking laws or that we're determined to oust the President when nowhere in the piece did we make either statement.

Cheers!

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. "you should either act on those words or acknowledge the shortcoming."

Did you miss the President's State of the Union in the wake of Citizens United? You know, the one where all the justices were in attendance, and he said it to their faces? WTF else was he supposed to do? The USSC is the final arbiter of law in this country.

Call it you what you want, but your ruminations about what else could be done with those millions is guilt tripping in my book. The great thing about being free & over 21, is those of us who donated to the campaign get to make the call as to what causes we think are worthy of our hard earned dollars. No amount of scolding will change my mind about how I choose to spend my own money, and I'm gonna guess the more than 500k BRAND NEW donors feel exactly the same.

And what exactly was "tactless" about announcing the amount of money raised? Take it up with the FEC as every campaign is required to disclose their fundraising, and the source of those funds, if not, they would be in violation. Get it? So your gratuitous use of words like "glee" & "tactless" are nothing more than noise.

As far as peaceful discussion, I don't think it's possible to discuss distortions "peacefully". You're trying to build a negative narrative, and if you come at me from a place of intellectual dishonesty, I will challenge you and the talking points to which you've obviously fallen victim.