Obama Downloads $7.9 Million from MoveOn and Web Donors

Barack Obama just shattered another grassroots fundraising record, drawing over $7.9 million in a two-day juggernaut ending Thursday. The large haul, driven by two separate Internet campaigns, fortifies Obama's political operation as the Democratic race shifts from Tuesday's national primary to a long, pitched battle for delegates.

Members of MoveOn donated over $320,000 to Obama in an overnight web campaign, according to estimates provided to The Nation. "The Obam-a-mentum fundraiser has been our biggest fundraiser yet this year," said Executive Director Eli Pariser. "There's been an overwhelming response from our members directly, and from past experience we're guessing up to the same number of our members have given through the Obama site as well," he added. MoveOn endorsed Obama after a virtual primary last week, spurring many of its 3.2 million members to campaign and donate on his behalf.

The MoveOn money augments a larger fundraising drive by the Obama Campaign, which raised $7.6 million this week. First, three million dollars poured in after the polls closed on Super Tuesday. Then on Wednesday, Obama's campaign manager emailed supporters with a challenge to donate as a rejoinder to the "startling news" that Hillary Clinton was plowing $5 million of her personal fortune into the presidential campaign. In response, a barrage of overnight donations topped $3 million.

Clinton also benefited from the web war, drawing over $4 million from 35,000 donors by Thursday morning. "From over a million volunteer hours to millions of dollars in contributions from thousands of online donors across the country, Sen. Clinton's grassroots support is a key part of her campaign's success," said Clinton Internet guru Peter Daou in an official statement.

Obama strategist David Axelrod stresses that only three percent of Obama's 650,000 contributors have hit the legal maximum for donations -- a highly unusual and advantageous breakdown for presidential donors. Most are uploading relatively small contributions. Obama is priming a new corps of grassroots activists who not only feel personally invested in his success, but can also give again upon request. His donors also donated a record-breaking $32 million in January, with over 85% of the money coming through BarackObama.com.

The candidates' new financial footing presents another role reversal in an unusually fluid and energized primary. The Clintons began with a seemingly insurmountable fundraising edge, drawing on a lucrative network of contacts cultivated over two decades spent at the pinnacle of the Democratic establishment. Clinton's finance team was so confident last year, it spent precious time raising over $17 million for the general election. (Federal law bars Clinton from spending that money now.) Some of the most experienced strategists in the party were entrusted to manage her primary war chest, including Harold Ickes, a sharp, former White House official who serves as Hilary's discreet "CFO." Yet the campaign burned through over $100 million in 13 months, apparently without a backup plan. Senior aides are now foregoing salaries while the campaign runs on a pay-as-you-go model.

Meanwhile, Obama did the unthinkable, trouncing Clinton's money edge by energizing an unusually large base of core supporters. To put his records in perspective, consider Tuesday's primary electorate. The candidates split about 14.6 million voters in 22 states. Obama's donors equal a striking 9 percent of his Super Tuesday turnout. Add the non-donor supporters that Obama has engaged, from office volunteers and decentralized phone bankers to the unprecedented 1.13 million people publicly declaring their endorsements on social networking sites, and over one out of ten Obama voters are essentially activists. That is a historic development for a presidential campaign. It means that a large share of Obama's base will not merely vote for him once, but repeatedly devote time, money, social capital and personal credibility to back his candidacy.

No one knows how much of this network can be scaled in a general election. But in primary politics, there is a term for the person who manages to draw the most voters, donors, money and committed activists: The most electable candidate.

Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this column first appeared.

--

Web War Chests

In the duel for online donations, Obama challenged his supporters to outraise Clinton's $5 million loan, while Clinton tapped 35,000 donors recruited from web chats and town halls.

Photo Credits: Obama Campaign, Ben Murray.

Comments

[belladawna]

click here to donate to hillary!!!
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=FIV6

thanks for that option in the moveon email!!! glad to still be a part of move on.. :)

[Gabrielle]

MOVEON IS NEEDED

I AM A MEMBER
OBAMA08

GIVE TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIN ON
WWW.MOVEON.ORG
WWW.BARACKOBAMA.COM

[SeanGardner]

I am a momeber of MOVEON too. Since 2002 in fact. I see that all of those MOVEON House Parties are paying off for Obama.

[altohone]

I keep hearing pundits talk about Hillary's "traditional Democratic base".

Then, they talk about exit polls and ignore that "traditional Democrats" are voting for Obama, while moderates and conservative Dems support Hillary.

The way pundits talk about it, they equate the Establishment Dems as "the base".

Then, they turn around and insist there are NO IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES between Obama and Clinton... and that her votes for the Bush agenda compared to Obama's early opposition signify NO difference... that Hillary's support for Mitt Romney's health care mandate is NO different... that Hillary's embrace of lobbyists and PAC's is NO different... ditto Hillary's vote for the Bankruptcy bill and Kyl-Lieberman.

The corporate and Establishment pundits continue to seek to blur lines to prevent known distinctions from being emphasized. I haven't even heard the DLC mentioned ONCE in the msm.

They want a contest based on personality, gender, and race... one that ignores the ideological differences... the differences that mean so much to those of us who have been paying attention... the differences that made Obama an attractive candidate to us in the first place.

[SeanGardner]

Obama is in the driver's seat right now.

He won more states than Hillary. And, his victory in 8 RED STATES, does nothing but bolster his oft-made point that he is the Democrat who can not only win BLUE STATES, but the Democrat who can win RED STATES too.

I saw HUFFPO Blogger Carl Jeffers on CNN or MSNBC on Wednesday Morning. He was singing the same song that Juan Willims of Fox News was singing last night: that Obama won in states "that Democrats aren't going to win in" in the general election. In other words, they are dismissing his 8 RED STATE wins as insignificant. That's too bad they see it that way.

When one looks at it, Obama is the first clear beneficiary of Howard Dean's "50 State" strategy that he launched in 2005. Dean's point was, Democrats can't just compete in BLUE STATES. Democrats need to be competitive everywhere. Barack Obama believs that too. So when Carl Jeffers and Juan Williams try to dismiss Obama's RED STATE success, I'm sure it boils the blood of RED STATE politicians (and Obama supporters) like Gov. Karen Sebelius, Gov. Janet Napatilano, Gov. Tom Kaine, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator Kent Conrad, and others.

If RED STATE Dems aren't as significant as BLUE STATE Dems, why did Howard Dean launch his "50 State Strategy" then? Better yet, answer this: Isn't this the same strategy that swelled the DEMS numbers in Congress, with the same culturally conservative DEMs that are voting for Barack?

Think people.

Juan Williams, Carl Jeffers and others need to remember that if winning just BLUE STATES was enough, John Kerry would have been president. Obama will win BLUE STATES in Novemeber, and will turn many RED and "PURPLE" states BLUE.

Many are thinking through the "conventional othodoxy" which mandated that Dems only concentrate on BLUE STATES, and give lip service to RED STATES. Obama is proving Dean's point: if Democrats compete aggressively in RED STATES, particularly in Missouri, Alaska, Kansas and Southern States, then can win.

Obama baby!!!

[Fairfloss]

Is Moveon going to own a president Obama? That is my main question. I wish he would answer that one.

Are we going to have a country according to George Soros's? Isn't that guy, Joran Van der Sloot a product of that sort of progressive thinking?

I would rather see Barack Obama move away from Moveon.

[Sceptic42]

So...out of over $100 million dollars, Obama will be bought because of $320,000? Less than 1/3 of one percent?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your "concern" is unfounded.