Wednesday, April 04, 2007

So Much For Inevitability

From the Associated Press:

DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama raked in $25 million for his presidential bid in the first three months of 2007, placing him on a par with front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and dashing her image as the party’s inevitable nominee.

...

The eye-popping figure was the latest evidence that Obama, a political newcomer who has served just two years in the Senate, has emerged as the most powerful new force in presidential politics this year.

It also reinforced his status as a significant threat to Clinton, who’d hoped her own $26 million first quarter fundraising total would begin to squeeze her rivals out of contention.


Obama raised the money from over 100,000 donors (50,000 on the Internets alone), which means he got wide support from small-money donors who he can hit up again later in the campaign (since they haven't hit the donation ceiling allowance.) Also, $23.5 million of the $25 million is primary money, which means he can also go back and hit up his donor list for general election money.

HRC's aura of inevitability is now officially finished.

I'm not supporting any candidate just yet, but I am ready to back any of the various ABC (Anybody But Clinton) candidates.

As I see it, the only way Repubs maintain control of the White House is if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and gives the GOP and the media the chance to relive all the glories of the 1990's all over again.

But if any of the other top tier or quality second tier candidates wins the Dem nomination, the Grand Old Corruption and Incompetence Party will have a very difficult time holding onto the presidency.

So now that Obama has shown he has real fund-raising ability and HRC is no longer the presumptive Democratic nominee, we have game on.

UPDATE: As I noted above, Obama raised his $25 million from 100,000 donors. According to TPM, Hillary Clinton raised her $26 million from 50,000 donors and John Edwards raised his $14 million from 37,000 donors.

The 100,000 number is truly impressive.

Comments:
reality, you wrote:

"But if any of the other top tier or quality second tier candidates wins the Dem nomination, the Grand Old Corruption and Incompetence Party will have a very difficult time holding onto the presidency."

Think again. This country WILL NOT elect a black man named Barack HUSSEIN Obama in 2008.

Because this is so painfully obvious, I'm surprised you're not claiming to see the Rovian influence at work here. Clearly Republicans want to see a rock fight between Hillary and Barack. Clearly Barack is even less electable than Hillary.

Rove knows this and subtly aids the Barack cause in its early stages by restraining Republican attacks upon him. Rove wants to encourage false security in the candidate and give a hint of hope to Democrats who, for a brief moment, will begin to believe that a black man with no political history, but with an islamic history can charm a guileless electorate into handing him the presidency.

Dream on. He's like a compelling third-party candidate. He'll stir the pot with his oratory, but in the end, no one will support him because he's too much of an outsider.

Ross Perot looked pretty good in 1992. His candidacy was based on some clear thinking and he had the appearance of "speaking truth to power." Nevertheless, he didn't even win the electoral votes of his home state of Texas.

What's Obama got? Nothing. If he were white, he'd have ZERO support. A white candidate with no meaningful political history who runs for the presidency is a candidate without a chance. That's one reason Senators rarely reach the top.

But Obama is black. That's his only differentiating characteristic. If you listen to him carefully, you'll hear Al Sharpton with better diction.

Clearly Rove has orchestrated this. Obama's magnetism will pull in funding, terrifying Hillary's team and leading them into either bulldozing Obama or blundering. In the end they may have to attempt appeasement by offering him the vice presidency in exchange for dropping out.

It won't matter, though. Because neither of them is likely to survive the primaries.
 
Rove and most GOP strategists want HRC. There is little doubt. That is why they talk her up and talk Obama down. I am no Obama fan and I am an anti-Clinton person. But there is little doubt that GOPers are licking their lips at having HRC as the Dem nominee. Nothing will rally the dispirited base like that.

As for your parroting Ed Rogers' Hussein comment, the people who are bigoted or stupid enough to not vote for someone because their middle name is Hussein are already base Republicans. Believe me, those same people wouldn't vote for HRC or John Edwards or anybody on the Dem side.
 
reality, you wrote:

"As for your parroting Ed Rogers' Hussein comment, the people who are bigoted or stupid enough to not vote for someone because their middle name is Hussein are already base Republicans. Believe me, those same people wouldn't vote for HRC or John Edwards or anybody on the Dem side."

Obama's middle name signifies his unalterable connection to islam. It's hardly bigotry to notice. Romney's Mormonism appears to be a concern to Republican voters. Given voter sensitivity to the nuances of Christianity, it's hardly stretching things to state that a candidate whose middle name binds him to the most ridiculous religion on Earth is going to lose some votes as a result of it.

Reminds me of Johnny Cash and "A Boy Named Sue."

Meanwhile, elections are all about swaying the fence-sitters and undecided voters. There is absolutely no question that some of those people will reject Obama because he is linked to islam. There's also no question he's receiving support at this point because he's black. His race has caused people to ignore his utter lack of qualifications for the job of president. No equivalent white candidate would enjoy such a pleasant ride.

But when Democratic primary voters cast actual ballots, the popularity he currently possesses in the polls will disappear. In other words, his appeal to Republican voters isn't relevant. It's the Democrats who will toss him. They'll do it because they know a black candidate with the middle name Hussein hasn't got a chance.
 
His unalterable connection to Islam? You are what you were named at birth?

As for his lack of qualifications, let me remind you that George W. was a two term governor from a state where the governor is essentially a ceremonial position. Before that, he ran two oil companies into the ground and traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs when he ran the Texas Rangers. He was also considered "little experienced". If you remember, Cheney added himself to the ticket because he had the "experience".
 
reality, you wrote:

"His unalterable connection to Islam? You are what you were named at birth?"

The religion of islam was part of his early life. His middle name is our permanent reminder. It's not as though he wasn't introduced to islam, the koran or a muslim lifestyle. He was. Worse, his ties to islam and the fact that he's black suggest he may be on friendly terms with Louis Farrakhan and the world of black muslims. All bad news for Obama.

In the early years of our space program, NASA publicists thought Gus Grisson's first name lacked the pleasant Norman Rockwell appeal of the first names of the other Mercury Program astronauts. He was asked for his middle name. Ivan, he said. We were in a space-race with the Russians. Plans to use his middle name were dropped.

You wrote:

"As for his lack of qualifications, let me remind you that George W. was a two term governor from a state where the governor is essentially a ceremonial position."

Even a light-duty governorship gives a candidate far more government managerial experience than a seat in the Senate. There's no comparison. Obama was in charge of nothing. Moreover, his record in office shows he's a follower, not a leader.
 
Managerial experience? Bush ran two oil companies into the ground before he became governor. Seems like pretty poor managerial experience to me. And given the track record of his presidency (Katrina, Iraq war, exploding budget), it seems his oil company managerial experience has carried over to the WH.
 
reality, you sneered:

"Managerial experience? Bush ran two oil companies into the ground before he became governor."

First, Bush isn't running in 2008. Second, he ran against the wooden Indian Al Gore in 2000. Gore may have been V.P. but Clinton obviously disliked him, and that fact wasn't lost on voters. Gore was also from a family with plenty of ties to tobacco. Let's see, which is bad and which is good? Tobacco or oil? Hmmm.

As for your concerns about Bush's ability to run an oil company, well he didn't fare well. But you need to know more history of the oil industry in those years to assess his performance. Failure was the norm in those years. Only big multinationals like Exxon were able to weather the storms caused by the middle east oil embargo that resurfaced in 1979.

The following is a very brief history of Bush's oil industry experience.

...He later traded mineral and royalty interests and invested in drilling prospects. He had started his own oil and gas company by 1978, taking $17,000 from his education trust fund to set up Arbusto Energy (arbusto means Bush in Spanish). The company fell on hard times when oil prices fell. He made several attempts to revive the business, first by changing the company's name and later by merging with other companies.

In 1983, Bush’s company was rescued from failure when Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, bought it. Bush became chief executive officer. Harken Energy Corporation acquired Spectrum 7 in 1986, after Spectrum had lost $400,000.

In the buyout deal, Bush and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken stock for the 180-well operation. Bush became a director and was hired as a "consultant" to Harken. He received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year.

By the spring of 1987, Harken was in need of cash. So Bush and his fellow Harken officials met with Jackson Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., an investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas (Stephens contributed $100,000 to the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and gave another $100,000 to the Bush dinner committee in 1990.)

Stephens arranged for Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Bush’s company in return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the deal, Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as a major investor.

Stephens, UBS, and Bakhsh each had ties to the infamous, scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

In 1990, Bush sold his remaining stock options and left the oil business.

reality, while the gasbag writer claims Bush sold his Harken stock at a propitious moment, he has misled readers. Bush sold too early. True, Harken stock took a dive. But it was temporary. After dropping, it rebounded and soared well above the price at which he sold it.

He had the same misfortune as Martha Stewart. She jumped out before a troubling FDA announcement. But since then the stock she sold has soared. The smart move would have been to buy more after the bad news was out.

Anyway, the late 1970s and much of the 19802 were disastrous for small oil companies. Oil prices whipped up and down causing huge numbers of small operators to make financing mistakes that destroyed their companies. The list of bankruptcies in the oil patch from those days is nothing short of staggering. But few people know the history. I know it because I was writing stock research on those companies in the late 1980s and 1990s.
 
Thanks for providing the details of HOW Bush ran two oil companies into the ground, No_slappz.
 
rbe, you're spot on in describing the Texas governorship as a largely ceremonial position. The governor gets a lot of ink on his proposals, but the real power to move legislation is held by the Lieutenant Gov. The Comptroller can also be a heavy hitter, because she/he controls the purse strings.

Bush's two hot buttons when he was in office were school vouchers and charter schools. He twisted every arm he could grab, but failed completely on the vouchers. A FEW of the original charter schools are still in operation, but many have died a merciful death because they were set up by incompetants dying to dip their hands into the public purse.

He wasn't the worst governor we've had, though. That honor goes to Dolph Briscoe, who was clueless enough in his first term, but had a stroke during the campaign for a second. His handlers were successful in hiding him from the public until he was re-elected, but he never did recover all that much.

A salient point about Bush's oil industry experience was that there was always some white knight waiting in the wings to take a bunch of worthless paper off his hands at a premium just in time for Bush himself to avoid the collapse. One either has to believe in a God that takes special care of him, or suspect someone of significant SEC violations. I'm an agnostic on that one.
 
reality, you wrote:

"Thanks for providing the details of HOW Bush ran two oil companies into the ground..."

I'm not about to look back at ancient Harken SEC filings, but I can tell you that most small exploration and production companies collapsed because management paid a lot to acquire drilling rights and then paid even more to hire drilling companies.

The high prices for everything increased the risk of failure -- the number of wells E&P companies could drill were limited by high costs. A dry hole was devastating, so the E&P companies paid plenty for seismic mapping, a specialty service offered by Schlumberger, the leader in that segment, and other smaller players.

The theory was simple. Discovering one good well would repay investors who hung in there through a number of dry holes. Bush apparently didn't have enough luck finding reserves. That happened to lots and lots of players. But most of them kept coming back, rounding up more drilling money and drilling more wells.

But even they were slammed in 1983 when oil prices cracked and the whole industry was crippled.

Companies had signed drilling contracts and production contracts based on the price of oil in 1983, which reached $35 a barrel. Adjusted for inflation, oil in 1983 was more expensive than it is today.

But oil prices collapsed, falling below $20 a barrel. Due to the sudden drop, it was impossible for many companies to function. Contracts they'd signed were no longer profitable with oil below $20. Natural gas suffered price problems too.

Moreover, about this time the Savings & Loan Crisis kicked into high gear. People who had worked in the oil industry were suddenly out of work and could no longer pay their mortgages. In those days Texans could simply mail their house keys to the bank and walk away.

John Connally, another Texas governor, also began a run for the presidency. But his history of wheeling and dealing derailed that hope. He'd had a little problem with bribery. Later, he too went bankrupt as a result of oil industry reversals.
 
kicksiron, you wrote:

"Bush's two hot buttons when he was in office were school vouchers and charter schools."

Let's not mince words, private schools are better than public schools.

You wrote:

"He twisted every arm he could grab, but failed completely on the vouchers."

Proof only that the bureaucratic monopoly on education in the state of Texas is has the same lock on failure there that it has here in New York City.

You wrote:

"A FEW of the original charter schools are still in operation, but many have died a merciful death because they were set up by incompetants dying to dip their hands into the public purse."

Are you suggesting the state bureaucratic monopoly on education is the home of "competence?"

A very good friend of mine lived in the Woodlands in Houston for a few years. Two of his kids attended high school there. The schools at the Woodlands were excellent. But the success of the Woodlands schools reflected the quality of the kids and their parents more than anything else.

There are also many fine colleges and universities in Texas. If competition were not virtually banned by the state, more Texas high schoolers would attend those colleges and universities.
 
Hey, kicksiron, remember the Texas Education Miracle? George W and Rod Paige made believe they turned around the school system w/ their brilliant reform approach to education.

Of course, it later turned out that Paige had falsified test scores and drop-out rates and the "Texas Miracle" was all bullshit

It was another "Mission Accomplished" moment for Bush.
 
n_s, SOME private schools are better than almost all public schools. We have Hockaday and St. Marks in Dallas, and I would put them up against any in the nation, public or private. Private schools (who can charge whatever the traffic will bear) are NOT, however, the same as charter schools (which must be run at near the same cost as public schools). We have a few decent charter schools here, a few I wouldn't send my cat to, and a few that died from their own incompetence. Quality is largely a function of management's skill and dedication, and charters are in direct competition with public for that quality. The falacy behind Bush's charter school program is that private enterprise can/will provide a better service given the same resources than government can.

There always have been, and continue to be, excellent public school districts in Texas -- not all of them, mind, and not nearly enough, but they prove the validity of the principle of public education -- with a moderate amount of resource, the WILL and a fair level of local control, public education will produce a well- educated citizenry.

Robin Hood, a program whereby wealthy districts share school tax revenue with poorer ones, has been an unmitigated disaster, taking from districts where things were going well yet not giving enough to poorer districts to make up for decades of neglect and failure. That's one of the problems that's not W's fault. It's the same problem many welfare programs face -- a crust of bread won't fix years of hunger -- if you want to fix someone, then spend every dollar it takes to FIX their lives, and don't pretend half-hearted help should have been enough. Enough for now.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?