Ka--CHINNNNG!

Easy as A-B-C


Really surprising news was released by the Federal Elections Commission regarding the fund raising achievements of the leading candidates.

On the Democratic side, there appears to be considerable traction by the A-B-C group: those political operatives and rank-and-file members who believe that Hillary Clinton is not, for various reasons, the best possible standard bearer for the coming election.Hence, A-B-C , or Anyone But Clinton. The ABCs believe Hillary has too much baggage, is too polarizing, voted for the Iraq war, is too wooden a candidate, and various combinations of the above. In searching for an alternative, the unseasoned Barack Obama managed to virtually tie Hillary in the amount of money raised the last quarter: $26 million for Clinton versus $25 million for Obama. Edwards came in at third place with $14 million. Take a look at this Jeff Zeleny NYTIMES article.

Of equal importance is the source of the funds. Clinton raised her money in a serious of big ticket events for Democratic fat cats, while Obama held many cheaper rallies and used the internet effectively. One possible result is that Hillary has maxed out the permissible fund raining of the fat cats and now has to depend upon the "little people" , who really don't get the "warm fuzzies" from her. On the other hand, Obama, has had more than twice the number of individual donations , and in far smaller denominations, than has Hillary. If Obama shows strength going forward, he then has the opportunity to pick up support, and more important, cash, from people who previously gave big bucks to Hillary but now see Obama as a potential winner.

On the whole, the Dems seem to be the money powerhouse this election cycle as they continue to surprise by raising more money, overall, than the Republicans. Early ’08 Fund-Raising Has Clear Blue Tint

Don't discount the possibility that the heavyweights,: Obama (geez.. calling a flyweight like Obama a heavyweight is mind boggling), Clinton and , bringing up the rear of the so-called "first tier" of Dem candidates , John Edwards, could tear each other apart
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

Major bad news for the candidacy of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney raised significantly more money that McCain.

McCain's candidacy seems to be in shambles as he is shuffling campaign staff members and trying to field an effective fund raising team . For someone who has previously run for the presidency, this is an ominous sign.

Both McCain and Romney have flip-flopped on issues and each one presents no definable political persona. Instead, they look like a couple of old style pols who will do and say anything to get another vote. It is a sad move for the once highly regarded and self-styled maverick, McCain, and well as the moderate-liberal Romney.

Meanwhile, the high flying Rudy Giuliani seems to be coming back down to earth as more and more details come out about his personal life and his business dealings, particularly his attachment to former police commissioner Bernard Kerick. Now Rudy is saying that he supports public funding for abortions. Rudy's trying to run away from his political record, but as Satchel Paige used to say, " Don't look back, someone might be gaining on you."

If Rudy stays in contention, the opposition will start to pound him with so many negatives that Rudy will feel that he was hit with a southeast Asian tsunami.


Overall, it looks as though both the Democrats and the Republicans are having a hard time coalescing around one leading candidate. This is a good thing! It gives the campaign process, rather than the money raising process, enough time to have a real impact by requiring candidates to test themselves and their ideas in the public forum.

Don't be surprised if dark horse candidates start to gain traction, candidates with substance, and more importantly, candidates more in tune with their party's core values. Look for Bill Richardson on the Democratic side and Newt Gingrich for the Republicans.