WASHINGTON, July 1, 2007

Obama Campaign Pulls In Big Money

Illinois Senator Rakes In $32.5M For Second Quarter, $10M More Than Hillary Clinton

  • Play CBS Video Video Critical Week For '08 Hopefuls

    Mitt Romney is poised to beat Presdient Bush's record fundraising number of $37 million in the first quarter of his campaign. Joie Chen reports on the race to raise campaign cash.

  • Video Edwards' Wife Rebukes Coulter

    Harry Smith speaks with Elizabeth Edwards about her public exchange with conservative political commentator Ann Coulter.

  • Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, left, hit a record for campaign fundraising by a Democratic presidential candidate, with $32.5 million raised over the last three months. Se. Hillary Clinton, right, raised $21 million for the second quarter. Photo

    Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, left, hit a record for campaign fundraising by a Democratic presidential candidate, with $32.5 million raised over the last three months. Se. Hillary Clinton, right, raised $21 million for the second quarter.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CBS/AP)  Sen. Barack Obama has outdone fellow Democrat and chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in quarterly campaign fundraising for the 2008 presidential election.

The first-term senator surpassed the former first lady by $10 million in second-quarter contributions that can be spent on the Democratic presidential primary contest.

Obama's campaign on Sunday reported raising at least $31 million for the primary contest and an extra $1.5 million for the general election from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.

Clinton's campaign announced late Sunday that she had raised $21 million for the primary. With general election contributions added, aides said her total sum would be "in the range" of $27 million. Candidates can only use general election money if they win their party's nomination.

Asked if Obama's fundraising made him uneasy, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told CBS's The Early Show Monday, "You're always nervous in these campaigns.

"What's clear is both candidates will have all the money they need in order to run an effective race," he said.

The whopping amount for Obama, who hopes to become America's first black president, ensures his place as a top contender for the Democratic nomination. It steals the spotlight from Clinton, who hopes to be the first woman president. And it establishes the two of them as the fundraising juggernauts of the entire presidential field.

For Obama, vaulting ahead of Clinton in the money race is an important achievement. Despite broad public interest in Obama's candidacy, he trails Clinton in national polls.

Counting this quarter's surge of donors, Obama has received donations from more than 258,000 donors through the first half of the year, an extraordinary figure at this stage of the campaign. He raised $25.7 million in the first three months of the year.

Meanwhile, Democrat John Edwards raised more than $9 million from April through June and relied on nearly 100,000 donors during the first half of the year.

The campaign has said it is on track to raise $40 million by the Iowa caucuses in January.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was at Edward's heels, with his campaign reporting more than $7 million raised. But Edwards' six-month total was $23 million, compared with more than $13 million for Richardson.

The figures that some campaigns released Sunday are estimates. Details of how much the campaigns raised and spent in the latest period will not be available until the candidates file financial reports with the Federal Election Commission by July 15.

While several Democrats revealed their total sums, Republicans were not expected to announce their figures until Monday or later in the week.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from Politics

Add a Comment See all 61 Comments
by imprisonbush July 1, 2007 2:51 PM PDT
No matter how much money he raises, I will not vote for Barack after he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Bush and Cheney have not done anything that deserves impeachment. Poppy ***! However warm and fuzzy his speeches, Obama obviously lacks the judgment to be President. These Republican war criminals need to be impeached, prosecuted and hung.
Reply to this comment
by shortestfuse July 1, 2007 3:01 PM PDT
"Obama Sets Dem. Campaign Cash Record"

Wow! I guess P.T. Barnum was right....
Reply to this comment
by condumism July 1, 2007 3:05 PM PDT
imprisonbush posted:

No matter how much money he raises, I will not vote for Barack after he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that Bush and Cheney have not done anything that deserves impeachment.

Obama and Edwards are by far the best the 2008 race has to offer. Problem: American's are so dumb and gullible, they voted for Bush/Cheney, TWICE! and Ronald Reagan, TWICE! These two scumbags are why the USA is TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL! Although you may not agree with Obama, he or Edwards are the best the field has to offer. Look at the GOPigs.......... running on empty, and terrorizing their base of FOOLS!
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 3:12 PM PDT
I don't wanna seem rude but, it seems kinda funny to me that Kicinich and Gravel make all the good points, and this guy takes all the credit for it.

This is what really pisses me off too about racism. Its become the art of who looks the better, and its bullshyyyt.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 3:15 PM PDT
Actually, Hillary's the same way.

Ya wanna know why Bush won, Mr. Obama? Because he studders. People who don't studder pull fast ones like slick.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 3:18 PM PDT
Oh, and by the way: This is the first time I've seen a Obama CBS news report with the blog dialogs.

Pretty funny huh? Maybe the Presidency is free of criticism. I could be guessing though..
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 July 1, 2007 4:00 PM PDT
This is precisely the problem though. More dollars means more votes. They spend most of their time raising money and less time working on taking care of the country.

I am for tax dollars to offset private contributions. Check that $5 box on your tax return. It comes out of the general fund and helps the people have a say in what goes on.
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw July 1, 2007 4:02 PM PDT
It you want a real change, vote for Ron Paul.

He's an independent wrapped in a GOP flag. He's one of the few in the GOP who actively opposes the GOP and Dem platforms.

Besides that, he's intelligent. A rare commodity in Washington.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 July 1, 2007 4:11 PM PDT
From the London Times

Cyber-bullies who plague internet chat rooms with obscene and insulting comments will be banned under the first national scheme to strip them of their anonymity.

People going online will be forced to provide their real names and social security numbers under a new law that makes internet portals responsible for policing message boards and weblogs.

The law has been introduced in South Korea, and is certain to be closely monitored by other countries where there is concern over online abuse.

The move, which is decried by some as an overly fierce infringement of online liberties, aims to curb the most damaging excesses of so-called %u201Ckeyboard warriors%u201D %u2013 people who concoct ***-scandals, fraud allegations and other libels that chiefly target figures in the public eye


Welcome to "1984"

Reply to this comment
by vastr-wcon July 1, 2007 4:27 PM PDT
The supporters of "flak"-ignorant, Empty-Suit, Rezko-Partner-in-Crime BO must be giving him AT LEAST HALF of their welfare checks! My tax dollars are going down the drain, again.
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw July 1, 2007 4:30 PM PDT
Posted by radiob at 04:11 PM : Jul 01, 2007

Why should anyone be anonymous on the Internet?

The Internet is a public medium or thoroughfare, same as a newspaper, highway or sidewalk. People should not be allowed to don disguises and vandalize websites.

We can thank trolls for this eventuality.

I can't say I support it, but with trolls running amok all over the Internet, it has to come sooner or later.

Trolls are no different than criminals who vandalize any other property. And, they should be identified and prosecuted, same as all other vandals.

Besides that, no one is anonymous on the Internet. That is an urban legend. Governments' agents can identify most us if they really wanted to. ISP's maintain records of their subscribers. And, everyone must use an ISP, even trolls.

Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 4:54 PM PDT
"Why should anyone be anonymous on the Internet?"

Oh man, you should see me in person. I'm a timid.. cowardly.. little fella who always does what people say. Once I was walk'n in my apartment? And just this guy walk'n out, he grabbed me by the collar and threw me up against the mailboxes, and then left. And I thought noth'n of it.

But once I git behind that wheel.. holy moley. Dr. Jeckyl, Mr. Hyde.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 5:11 PM PDT
Thats why I don't really like people like Barrak Obama. Stand'n tall, and cool.. Act'n all cool and shyyyt. What de helll fer? Huh? He's not saying one ******** thing. He's just.. annointed. By de god damned peesee commitee.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 5:16 PM PDT
And "you people" can't take criticism..
Reply to this comment
by NightSongz July 1, 2007 5:34 PM PDT
He should donate that money to education because otherwise he is just wasting it because he won't win.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 July 1, 2007 6:00 PM PDT
Why should anyone be anonymous on the Internet?
Thanks to the radical in the world it is not limited to the internet.Phones, bank accounts, credit cards, associations etc. are now available for the government to look into our personal lives.Thanks, KKK, OBL, Hamas, Hezzbollah, Al Queda, Ayran Nation etc. for slowly stripping the world of its freedoms.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb July 1, 2007 6:13 PM PDT
When America was all about itself, self contained and operated in its own world, America could get away with choosing the best white American and not the best American! In a Global economy against global competition, its gut check time for America, because America can no longer afford the luxury of playing racial politics and must use the best resource, the best American to compete and win. Is America ready for a Black or half Black President? Personally I don't think so and if it is ready, its very borderline ready, the reality is America is not the TV show 24! Early in the race Black leaders feared a Barack Obama Democratic win and predicted if Obama wins the entire Democratic Ticket will lose all the way down the ticket because his race would be successfully exploited by the GOP in swift-boat style part 2. I'm not endorsing Obama, but if he is the "ONE", will America let him be the "ONE"? If America is not ready it would be a shame to risk it and hand the election to the GOP on a silver platter! Reality Check Time!!
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat July 1, 2007 6:26 PM PDT
Yeah, trailblazers have to be absolutely perfect because any weak points will be scrutinized to raise the question that if no other ----- (woman or black) has held the position before, can it be done? Change makes people feel like they're taking a leap of faith . . . the difference with Hillary is that women actually have the majority in terms of voting numbers, so even of many of those women still buy into the status quo a substantial number will not.

Trailblazing opportunities oftentimes only arise in the wake of extreme corruption and incompetence of the status quo (ie Bush). And yeah, I'm not sure whether frustration with Bush will necessarily translate to rejection of the Republican candidate if they too reject Bush.

It's frustrating to see headlines of domestic terrorism all over Britain on one page and presidential candidates instead of addressing people's concerns about anti-terrorism policy counting the $$$ in their coffers on the other page. Hopefully Mayor Bloomberg will be the different candidate that many of us are thirsting for (?)
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 July 1, 2007 6:32 PM PDT
Fantasy Island...Does anyone really believe that this red neck Nation will elect a black or a woman? Get real...
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 6:50 PM PDT
Its got nothing to do with whether or not he's black. It has to do with whether or not you got what it takes to be a leader. Bush, though lacking on several characteristic aspects, has taken whats likely the most amount of criticism afforded ANY president. I mean, people are all over this guy. For everything! From the way he walks, to the way he talks.

I really really wonder.. if a black man.. can take that kind of criticism.

And I don't think so.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 6:54 PM PDT
I think that this guy is a product of a pretentious radical left wing. A kind of a prince.. or a king. In some.. far away land not America. And I think that he's soft. I'm not talking about violence. Or whether or not he can box. I'm talking about whether or not he can take the criticism afforded the presidency. And believe you me.. it is ********* thick. They will watch him take a **** in the toilet. They will watch him, his wife, his family.. and they will talk the vilest ********* stuff you ever ********* saw, black man.

AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT STUFF! YOU CRACK!
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 6:58 PM PDT
You become a.. ******** reverend or somfin.
Reply to this comment
by crystalblue3 July 1, 2007 7:00 PM PDT
I'm rootin' for you Obama!!!
Reply to this comment
by sharncedar July 1, 2007 7:22 PM PDT
Has Obama or any of his handlers been to Bilderberg conference in the last few years? Have any of his people or himself been to the Bohemian Grove? There hasn't been a president in 20 years who wasn't connected with Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove and other meetings of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

If you tell me he has been at these meetings then I'll believe he is being groomed for the presidency, otherwise he's just another ploy or game by thos who manipulate the elections.
Reply to this comment
by huanaco July 1, 2007 7:42 PM PDT
TO WHOM IS OBAMA KIDDING ? THIS CANDIDATE HAS BEEN BUILD UP FOR SMART ***** FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THEY KNOW FOR SURE IF HE IS ELECTED AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE THE REPUBLICAN WILL WIN THE ELECTION . AMERICA IS NOT READY AND NEVER WILL BE FOR A BLACK PRESIDENT. OBAMA, DO AMERICA A FAVOR, QUIT, YOU8 REACHED THE SKY BEING A SENATOR.
Reply to this comment
by b000771 July 1, 2007 8:13 PM PDT
To reply to some of the previous comments ...1) Can a black man stand up to the criticism LOL I think 400 yrs of slavery in America and discrimination any black person can take it ....As far as Bush , he couldnt survive in a black community or a tough white one....his cheerleading background wouldnt cut it ...the ability to dodge true service wouldnt cut it...Bush has selective hearing ....he hears the elite and is deaf to the average person....Obama would make a better president than your last 6 presidents ....is America ready for a change ....it better be ....because if it keeps going down this spoiled , good ole boy road the world will take it over ....you have China in front of you , Middle east on your back, and Mexico taking over from both sides LOL can you say meet me at the quarterback ....keep electing the same type of white good ole boy and the nation may not recover from it ....look at Bush...picking a fight with the Middle East and we are getting whipped ....we had better control over Iraq when no troops were on the ground
Reply to this comment
by jonesforch July 1, 2007 9:17 PM PDT
WOW..donnie take santaic or something...
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 1, 2007 10:57 PM PDT
What'd I say? Its true! Dude! Ya got utube videos of Bush pick'n his nose! The rhetoric just never ceases! If that stuff happened to Barrak Obama, he'd move the Whitehouse to France!
Reply to this comment
by Keypinitreel1 July 2, 2007 12:17 AM PDT
Im not rich and Ive never even checked the donate block when I file taxes.. but even I have donated money to Obama's campaign.

He is honestly our best chance at breaking up the oligarchy thats running things in DC. I get the feeling that if we vote in Hillary..we will only get more of the same.....

Im just a normal Joe but Ive donated to Obama once..and Ill do it again. Every lil bit helps.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 July 2, 2007 12:38 AM PDT
Keypinitreel said, "[Obama] is honestly our best chance at breaking up the oligarchy thats running things in DC. I get the feeling that if we vote in Hillary..we will only get more of the same..."
---
You are not alone in this sense of backroom politics. Wherever the big money flows, you can bet promises are being made, compromises understood. This does not inspire confidence in the process or the players.

For the GOP, at least, such pre-convention, backroom markets in political stock is largely business as usual. Ever since Reconstruction, GOP nomination has been a game between monied players.

For the Democrats, we might be forgiven for thinking it should be different. With Obama, in particular, the major concern of mine is Obama can play both sides of the corporate street just as well as Clinton, and already has.

For example, when the bill to permit American seniors to import their drugs at considerable cost savings came to a vote, Obama did not participate. Whether Obama was merely "in" the lobby at the time, or a lobbyist has no effective difference.
Reply to this comment
by missingamerica July 2, 2007 12:57 AM PDT
America is heartily sick of the job losses that followed the other Clinton's "we will become a service economy so we need not worry about losing all of our manufacturing jobs" promises made even as he was flying around on an Indian oursourcing tycoon's private jet, and sicker yet of the nepotistic circle of neocons bent on getting richer at the rest of America's expense that is the Republican Party now.

Being neither a Clinton nor a Republican gives Obama a tremendous advantage.
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 2, 2007 1:32 AM PDT
"...Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president."
26 October 2002
Barak Obama
full speech: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech



Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 2, 2007 1:43 AM PDT
"...So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let%u2019s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let%u2019s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let%u2019s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
26 October 2002
fullspeech:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Reply to this comment
by kaliveotin July 2, 2007 4:41 AM PDT
I know Obama has a lot of support from some democrats, but I'm also sure that a lot of his money is comming from rich Republican types who are afraid of Hillary and are willing to donate some of thier cash to the STOP HILLARY effort.
IT WON'T WORK. She will get the nomination and Obama supporters will support her in the general election. This time its the Republicans who are going into the election wounded and argueing amongst themselves. GO HILLARY!
Reply to this comment
by mike71067 July 2, 2007 8:44 AM PDT
***Obama*** ***won***'***t*** ***beat*** ***Hillary*** ***in*** ***the*** ***primaries***. ***Hillary*** ***has*** ***the*** ***great*** ***buffoon*** ***husband*** ***that*** ***drives*** ***liberals*** ***into*** ***an*** ***ecstatic*** ***tizzy***, ***and*** ***he***'***ll*** ***do*** ***a*** ***great*** ***job*** ***campaigning*** ***for*** ***her***.

***Oh***, ***speaking*** ***of*** ***marginal*** ***candidates*** ***that*** ***rely*** ***on*** ***their*** ***spouses*** ***for*** ***campaigning***, ***I*** ***think*** ***it***'***s*** ***hilarious*** ***that*** ***Ann*** ***Coulter*** ***is*** ***a*** ***better*** ***campaigner*** ***for*** ***John*** ***Edwards*** ***than*** ***even*** ***Edwards*** ***is***. ***That*** ***sorry*** ***S***.***O***.***B***. ***can***'***t*** ***even*** ***generateinterest*** ***in*** ***his*** ***own*** ***campaign***. ***Coulter*** ***is*** ***forcing*** ***a*** ***bunch*** ***of*** ***losers*** ***to*** ***donate*** ***their*** ***hard***-***earned*** ***money*** ***to*** ***a*** ***losing*** ***cause***. ***Edwards*** ***will*** ***never*** ***get*** ***the*** ***nomination***. ***I*** ***hope*** ***Ann*** ***Coulter*** ***keeps*** ***draining*** ***the*** ***pocketbooks*** ***of*** ***Edwards***' ***supporters***. ***When*** ***the*** ***primaries*** ***are*** ***through***, ***those*** ***folks*** ***may*** ***just*** ***have*** ***well*** ***thrown*** ***their*** ***money*** ***into*** ***the*** ***toilet***, ***taken*** ***a*** ***dump*** ***on*** ***it***, ***and*** ***flushed*** ***it*** ***away***.
Reply to this comment
by mike71067 July 2, 2007 8:48 AM PDT
What happened to my last post? I know I'm foul-mouthed at times, but not like THAT!!!
Reply to this comment
by deborahcox05 July 2, 2007 8:48 AM PDT
The problem I have with Obama is that he has NO experience.

We need someone in the White House who knows what she is doing!

GO HILLARY! She has been training for this job for decades.

Vote for the most qualified - PLEASE!
Reply to this comment
by edjohn66 July 2, 2007 8:54 AM PDT
***JFK*** ***was*** ***a*** ***one***-***term*** ***senator*** ***when*** ***he*** ***got*** ***elected*** ***President***....

***Hillary*** ***voted*** ***for*** ***the*** ***war***. ***She*** ***voted*** ***for*** ***W***.'***s*** ***tax*** ***cuts*** ***for*** ***the*** ***rich***. ***And*** ***she*** ***voted*** ***for*** ***the*** ***Patriot*** ***Act***. ***Twice***.

***I*** ***can***'***t*** ***think*** ***of*** ***a*** ***reason*** ***to*** ***vote*** ***for*** ***Hillary*** ***over*** ***Barak*** ***Obama***. ***Unless*** ***you*** ***are*** ***a*** ***Republican***, ***that*** ***is***....
Reply to this comment
by prinzowhales July 2, 2007 9:03 AM PDT
***I*** ***wonder*** ***what***'***s*** ***causing*** ***those*** ***asterisks*** ***to*** ***appear*** ***in*** ***posts***...***they*** ***did*** ***in*** ***one*** ***of*** ***mine***, ***I*** ***rebooted*** ***and*** ***they*** ***did*** ***not*** ***appear*** ***in*** ***my*** ***last*** ***post***.

***Obama*** ***traveled*** ***to*** ***Israel*** ***with*** ***the*** ***rest*** ***of*** ***the*** ***herd*** ***and*** ***has*** ***already*** ***expressed*** ***his*** ***willingness*** ***to*** ***attack*** ***Iran***--***whether*** ***he*** ***gets*** ***more*** ***bucks*** ***than*** &***quot***;***Cattle*** ***Futures*** ***Payoffs***&***quot***; ***Clinton*** ***is*** ***really*** ***irrelevant*** ***for*** ***anyone*** ***interested*** ***in*** ***moving*** ***towards*** ***peace*** ***and*** ***against*** ***corruption***.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 9:12 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 9:37 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 9:51 AM PDT
***If*** ***even*** ***half*** ***of*** ***the*** ***polticians*** ***that*** ***raised*** ***money*** ***for*** ***campaining*** ***donated*** ***half*** ***of*** ***their*** ***funds***, ***then*** ***our*** ***national*** ***debt*** ***would*** ***be*** ***a*** ***lot*** ***smaller*** ***and*** ***quite*** ***possibly*** ***eradicated*** ***within*** ***a*** ***few*** ***elections***. ***Maybe*** ***instead*** ***of*** ***raising*** ***taxes*** ***they*** ***should*** ***look*** ***into*** ***that*** ***option***.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 10:02 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan July 2, 2007 10:36 AM PDT
I wonder who's going to be able to buy the most votes..........
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 10:42 AM PDT
***If*** ***even*** ***half*** ***of*** ***the*** ***polticians*** ***that*** ***raised*** ***money*** ***for*** ***campaining*** ***donated*** ***half*** ***of*** ***their*** ***funds***, ***then*** ***our*** ***national*** ***debt*** ***would*** ***be*** ***a*** ***lot*** ***smaller*** ***and*** ***quite*** ***possibly*** ***eradicated*** ***within*** ***a*** ***few*** ***elections***. ***Maybe*** ***instead*** ***of*** ***raising*** ***taxes*** ***they*** ***should*** ***look*** ***into*** ***that*** ***option***.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 11:23 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 11:23 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by joymab July 2, 2007 11:23 AM PDT
If even half of the polticians that raised money for campaining donated half of their funds, then our national debt would be a lot smaller and quite possibly eradicated within a few elections. Maybe instead of raising taxes they should look into that option.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan July 2, 2007 11:36 AM PDT
These rich a$$holes will never buy my vote.
Reply to this comment
by vastr-wcon July 2, 2007 11:39 AM PDT
The supporters of "flak"-ignorant, Empty-Suit and Rezko-Partner-in-Crime BO must be giving him AT LEAST HALF of their welfare checks. Once again, my tax dollars are going down the drain.
Reply to this comment
See all 61 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs