Denver Host Committee Falls $11.6 Million Short of Fundraising Obligation

By Jeralyn, Section Democratic National Convention 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
Tags: DNC, 2008 Convention, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Denver Host Committee, under a contractual deadline to raise $40.6 million by today for the Democratic National Convention in August, has confirmed it fell $11.6 million short of that amount. So, what now?

Barack Obama has raised $265 million for his campaign so far. Will he now assist the Host Committee in obtaining contributions for the convention?

The Obama campaign has broken all political fundraising records largely by mining the Internet for small contributions, collecting some $265 million. A fundraising pitch to those donors could vastly boost the convention's fundraising, several observers said.

While the Host Committee is confident the money will be raised one way or another, Committee Co-Chair Steve Farber addressed that possibility today:

"There are discussions occurring. We could definitely use the help of the Obama campaign," said Steve Farber, a Denver lawyer and leading member of the host committee. "The fact that we have a candidate now does help."

Today in Michigan, Al Gore endorsed Sen. Obama. He even sent out an e-mail to readers of his own website asking them to contribute to Obama. [More...]

Maybe he should have asked his supporters to contribute to the Convention, particularly since the Host Committee seems reluctant to ask the Obama campaign:

[Host Committee spokesman Chris] Lopez, the host committee's spokesman, insisted the campaign would not be held responsible for making up any fundraising shortfall. "Obama's great for the party, and there's a lot of love for him out there. But we can't depend on that," Lopez said. "We're under contract to raise the money and we expect we'll hit our target. It's not on the senator or his campaign, it's on us." An Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, referred all questions about the convention efforts to the host committee.

In recent elections, with the nominee chosen in advance of the convention, the convention chiefly has served as a vehicle to rally the delegates and introduce the nominee to the folks watching at home. The more excitement generated by the convention, the more enthusiastic voters will be in November, not just about voting for President, but for down-ticket Democrats as well.

There's no question Sen. Obama will be the star and the chief beneficiary of the convention publicity. I think it would be of great help to him, and to the down-ticket candidates, if his campaign would turn some of its fundraising prowess to helping ensure the convention is the best it can be.

[To be cross-posted at 5280.com]

< Why Hasn't Jeffrey Weaber Been Fired? | Odd Senses of Humor >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Denver Host Committee Falls $11.6 Million Short of Fundraising Obligation | 111 comments (111 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Gore is saying how much elections matter. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:12:44 PM EST

I wish he'd said that a little earlier.

Elections matter; primaries don't (5.00 / 11) (#20)
by angie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:37:32 PM EST

Obama Rulz.


Really (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:43:40 PM EST

So, when Gore endorsed Kerry and Edwards, it matter? Hmmn, when did Kerry and Edwards run the office? I know for a fact , his endorsement didn't matter.

I like Gore and by him endorsing Obama doesn't change my mind from liking him and disliking a man who lacks foreign policy and many other areas.

Choose country over party!


Angie is not a troll. You need to change your (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:52:32 PM EST

rating. I think you misunderstood her post...she was being sarcastic.


sociallybanned didn't troll rate Angie (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:12:46 PM EST

that was cannondaddy.


She changed it after I posted and before (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by Teresa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:30:11 PM EST

cannondaddy. It may have been an accident. I gave an obnoxious Obama supporter a five earlier and couldn't take it away. So I changed it to a one even though I don't like to troll rate anyone. I wish we could remove our ratings when we click too fast.


No worries. I take them as a compliment :-) (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by angie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:24 PM EST

at least you know they read them, eh?


: and they can't handle the truth! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by angie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:14:49 AM EST

that's the best part. :-)

Ahhhh (none / 0) (#85)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM EST

I know if you mark the radial button and then use the up and down arrows before clicking away, it will change the ratings. I've done that accidently and had to go back and change the rating.

I agree with you on wishing it was easy to unrate. I find I just have to refresh and go back to rerate the ones I meant to. Refreshing erases anything that was set with the [Rate All].


It's (5.00 / 11) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:13:01 PM EST

certainly a PR disaster for the DNC though. Not raising the money in what is supposed to be a "democratic year" I'm sure has to be disconcerting.

I will support individual Democratic (5.00 / 14) (#5)
by magnetics on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST

candidates but will not give directly to DNC. Regardless of the primary results, I am still outraged at the treatment of Michigan and Florida.


I doubt it but (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:41:15 PM EST

I would love it to be true because Huffpo stated he will possibly raise 100 million in June. Only time will tell! I hope it's no where close so I can lmao at them for creating news again.


It's really gotten out of hand (5.00 / 9) (#33)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:52:29 PM EST

These campaigns are now starting to look completely ridiculous with money being the primary force behind who wins. It didn't work for Obama to double spend against Clinton in more than one important state.

He's got a paid staff of 700, for heaven sake. That, alone, (if I remember right) was said to be 25:1 compared to McCain. He's also got a lot more campaign offices. That has to be costing plenty.

I can think of many better ways for this country to have $300M put into the economy.


: Maybe we should all vote for the guy who (none / 0) (#73)
by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:19:20 PM EST

spent the least on his campaign... Bob Barr anyone? Ralph Nader? Is there someone we can write in that didn't spend more than $100? (Oh boy! Would that kill the party system if some write-in candidate who spent $100 running won! It would have to be someone like Brad Pitt who would get a zillion dollars in free publicity!)

Evidently (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST

Obama insisted over Rendell's objection on not rescheduling a fund-raiser for Philadelphia because of the need for $.

Rendell objected because he felt it would be difficult to raise money when many prospective donors are on their way to the Jersey Shore for the weekend.


: Obama needs only loaves and fishes, not donors (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM EST

Buns of steel, feet of clay, head of solid stone
Lo, the Messiah:
"For most Democrats, the desire to recapture the White House is the imperative," said Rendell. "There's very little difficulty in persuading people to come help Sen. Obama."
But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."
Kenneth Gross, a campaign-finance expert, said the length and intensity of the grueling nomination battle means that "Obama has his work cut out for him." [...](Clinton fundraisers ready to aid Obama, party By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY)

money troubles is what i have (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST

seen some comments about on the web today. it seems rendell made a comment about the check he was giving the obama campaign and obama's comment was something about it better not bounce or something like that. sorry i can't quote from memory. the idea was that obama is feeling pressure regarding money and apparently doesn't feel too positive toward a former hillary supporter. i guess you can write in your own ideas regarding what it all meant. and now the dnc has money issues. That much money should be a walk in the park for them. the real underlying story would be quite interesting.


Maybe Rendell should ask for his check (5.00 / 4) (#65)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:47:41 PM EST

back....


i get the feeling that there is no love (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:26:09 PM EST

loss between obama and a number of high profile hillary supporters.


: obama made his bed, now he must lie in it... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:20 PM EST

Very Bad Obama Comment: We don't need the people, (5.00 / 3) (#117)
by jawbone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST

we just need the checks.

In response to Rendell telling Obamab that a summer weekend fundraiser was not the best idea in terms of getting people to attend, as many go out of town, to The Shore, etc.

From USA Today:

Rendell, who plans to campaign on Obama's behalf and raise money for him, said tonight's event in Philadelphia is a joint fundraiser for Obama and the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee.

But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."

Is it also a very telling Obama comment? He does have a way with words. Has the WORM come out yet?


: if i was the worm i'd climb right back (none / 0) (#126)
by hellothere on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST

in the tequila bottle!

I read he is having money problems too.... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM EST

Isn't he supposed to be the king of fundraising, or is the buyer's remorse starting to sink in?


Where!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#21)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:37:49 PM EST

Open Secrets (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST

says the May totals will be available on their site this Friday, June 20th.

I don't doubt one bit that you saw the report you are remembering somewhere, though.


I thought I read it was April (none / 0) (#46)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST

although May as well wouldn't surprise me.

But I think those numbers are just intake and outgoing within the month. He still has tons of cash overall.


: Yes, that is what I read (none / 0) (#66)
by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:49:09 PM EST

I saw the data filed on May 20th. While more money went out than came in, that was for the month of April only. Looked as if there was plenty on hand from prior months.

The Denver Host Committee is (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:29:01 PM EST

Denver, not the DNC, if I understand it correctly. When the cities compete for these big events they need to tell the DNC what they will provide to encourage them to choose their location. It will usually include things like security, transportation, the furnishings and audio/visual equipment, etc.

The DNC pays for the obvious convention items/decorations. I don't know if they provide anything for the delegates transportation or hotels.


You're (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:33:09 PM EST

right, it's the host committe but I think it still reflects poorly on the party.


Since it's Denver (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST

It could be a matter of reflecting badly on the candidate.

The city doesn't want to lose money on this. They bank on bringing a lot of revenue to their city through the spending the attendees and visitors will be doing.

Not sure what the economic conditions are in Denver, but since it's a city effort it won't be easy to get the Obama supporters outside Colorado to donate. They are small donors, remember :)


if denver and colorado lost a signifcant (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM EST

chunk of money that wouldn't be a good omen for carying colorado in the general.


Don't say that! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:22:33 PM EST

Obama is supposed to carry Colorado! And Denver!

I guess he needs to carry the host committee before he carries the entire state, yes? ;-)


: He'll carry Denver (none / 0) (#123)
by sj on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST

The city is reliably Democratic. So far. Not all the effects of gentrification have set in.
The state? Who knows.

Ah, I didn't catch that part (none / 0) (#12)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:32:39 PM EST

Thanks!


Same problem shows itself to the cities (4.66 / 3) (#23)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:40:18 PM EST

that host the Olympics, too. You hear later how much money the city actually lost as the result of hosting.

Seattle hosted something like the Commonwealth Games years ago. The financial hit to the city was enough that I don't think they've ever tried to host anything other than the Superbowl since.


A minor problem of geography (none / 0) (#57)
by cymro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST

Seattle hosted something like the Commonwealth Games years ago.

The Commonwealth Games are held in Commonwealth countries. Must have been another event -- or maybe you were thinking of Vancouver?


I can only assume (none / 0) (#61)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM EST

the reference was to the Goodwill Games.


I guess so, although it's hard ... (none / 0) (#76)
by cymro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST

... for me to accept that:

(a) the Goodwill Games were ever considered a real sporting event (which is probably why I had forgotten all about them, and also why any city foolish enough to sponsor them lost money), and

(b) 1990 can legitimately be described as "years ago."


Stretch (none / 0) (#91)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02:01 PM EST

Two can be described as "years ago".

It was the Goodwill Games and you would have had to live here to realize the big deal it was in building athletic stadiums, huge pools with high dives and spectator seating, and making sure the infrastructure was capable of handling the traffic. It was big enough to justify that.


: Too bad it was all Ted Turner's fiendish plan ... (none / 0) (#98)
by cymro on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST

... and he didn't care about the losses:

... few sports fans attended the fifteen-day event and even fewer watched the festivities on television. Turner reportedly lost $26 million on the charter Goodwill Games, but he was determined to carry on.
I guess if Moscow's losses in 1986 were bad enough to end the cold war, then some losses by Seattle were worth it in the end. Thanks, Seattle taxpayers! Shame that Ted Turner wasn't nice enough to tell you about his real goals before you agreed to pay.

I know that, I just can't remember what (none / 0) (#89)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56:24 PM EST

the name of the games was. It's not as big as the Olympics, and it's not part of the Commonwealth.

The last time I attended the Commonwealth games was in Australia (Brisbane 1982). I'm very familiar with that organization.


I'm certainly not (5.00 / 13) (#4)
by Coldblue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:19:33 PM EST

donating to the the Obama campaign or to the DNC.

Instead, I will donate to individual candidates that have my confidence.

Perhaps This Explains the Rush To Cave on FISA (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by BDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:20:00 PM EST

They need to convince more people that it will be worth their while to buy access to Democrats. Hey, but at least you can buy top access for only a million bucks. The GOP charges $5 million.

The entire thing is appalling, IMO.

Have we heard Obama's numbers (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:27:52 PM EST

from May/June? I've had about 3 email pushes for donations and now this from Gore. Does Obama need money along with the DNC?

Gore, sent out the email (5.00 / 7) (#10)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:30:16 PM EST

saying he is endorsing Obama and then provides a "donate" link to Obama. I guess everyone is broke by giving to Obama. I'd seen where supporters gave up some of their economic stimilus money to Obama. WTF ever, that's my money for a new couch and table. It was 15 million so they are making progress.

How much did Obama spend during the primaries? I can't find that total number at all.

I'm curious why are they so broke for this, they haven't even begun attacking McCain? Well, with one crappy ad. whippi do da

Good point (5.00 / 6) (#14)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST

What happened to that monthly report on campaign donations vs. campaign spending?

May should have been released.


: Thank YOU! (4.80 / 5) (#16)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:36:09 PM EST

I've Had Three Solicitation Letters (5.00 / 5) (#47)
by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:11:58 PM EST

asking for contributions from Obama in the last couple of weeks and one letter from Gore asking for money for the DSCC. All were returned without money notifying them I have left the party.

Since I've unsubscribed from all Democratic organizations and candidates supporting Obama so I haven't gotten any e-mails.


I got one letter from Obama (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST

soliciting contributions and included was an Obama brochure. I thougth the mailing was rather lavish as they even included an envelope. I have never received a solicitation like this.


All Mine Had Self-Addressed, Stamped Envelopes (5.00 / 4) (#70)
by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM EST

Nice that they provide the postage for me to tell them that its not my party anymore.


: Finally had the privilege of returning one (5.00 / 5) (#71)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:03:49 PM EST

of those letters to obama...wrote on it to lose my name, address and phone number and take me off their list. Felt good...

: Hahahahahahaha, that's funny (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by stefystef on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST

I think the DNC are getting lots of letters "Return to Sender" these days...

I will not leave the party. But I have responded (none / 0) (#110)
by Joelarama on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:25:22 AM EST

that down-ticket candidates will get my contribution this election cycle. Zero for Obama. Zero to the DNC until Dean and Brazile are no longer affiliated.


i would have to think that pressure (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:13:53 PM EST

must have been brought on gore to pony up and play with the rest in the sandbox.


Yes, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by roadburdened on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM EST

The pathetic Democratic Party should ask its best fundraiser for help.

: wasn't that's what this big move to (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:20:48 PM EST

chicago was suppoed to be about or so i read. the campaign and all these new donors. money everywhere it seemed! and now no money or much less than might be expected. interesting.

Hard time figuring out people's comments (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by rdandrea on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST

I think the original post suggested that the Denver Host Committee needed more money.

So what happens if the Denver Host Committee doesn't get more money? Do we move the convention somewhere else?

To the Obama-bashers in this thread, does it serve the Denver people right that Obama won and the Denver people are having financial problems? What does the winner have to do with where we hold a convention and how much it costs? Help me understand here. Personally, I don't see what one has to do with the other.

My gut says that Denver is going to host the convention one way or another, regardless of the nominee, and regardless of whether they come up with the money on time or not.

So what's the plan here?

For a start (5.00 / 12) (#25)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST

Maybe the Democratic Party and its nominee shouldn't be working overtime to alienate the Clinton fundraising network. Just a thought, but it sure would be nice to have more money in the coffers.


Clinton has nothing to do with this problem (2.60 / 5) (#32)
by rdandrea on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:49:03 PM EST

It's about Denver and the cost of putting on a convention.

If you have a more on-topic suggestion, I'd like to hear it.

This isn't about Clinton or Obama. It's about Denver.


oh good (5.00 / 6) (#37)
by miguelito on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST

for a second there I thought you were going to say it was Clinton's fault. I mean, we KNOW nothing is ever Obama's fault, right?


Denver should raise taxes then (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST

To provide for their convention.


I BEG your pardon (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:42 PM EST

Mayor Hick promised no taxpayer dollars would be used for the convention.

I intend to hold him to it.


no tax money (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:53:27 AM EST

will be used. That was promised at the outset and reaffirmed a few days ago.


You might be right (none / 0) (#54)
by rdandrea on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:18:49 PM EST

And if you were willing to harm the down-ticket races, the ones that really matter people who live here, you WOULD be right.

I'm not sure that raising taxes would be very good for down-ticket Democrats here, however.


: All I know is (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST

This is Denver's problem.

It shouldn't be (5.00 / 5) (#28)
by Coldblue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:44:08 PM EST

our concern.

These are people who supposedly possessed good judgment.


Well then I feel bad for the city of Denver (5.00 / 6) (#52)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:16:15 PM EST

but not bad enough to donate even a thin dime to anything remotely related to the DNC.

Maybe China could host the convention in one of their alternate venues. There are a few DNC members I'd like to put on a slow boat...


Denver will host the convention (none / 0) (#106)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:57:37 AM EST

one way or the other. If you read the articles linked to, you will see that most believe the protracted nature of the primary and not knowing who the nominee would be caused donations to flounder.

Colorado went heavily for Obama in the caucuses, so it clearly wasn't a backlash against him, it was the uncertainty.

That said, he's now the presumptive nominee and he's great at raising money. It would be nice if he'd help raise money for the Host Committee.


I say no deal for my entire family (5.00 / 7) (#29)
by athyrio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:44:43 PM EST

since Obama is the beneficiary maybe he can pay for the convention. I have heard from several sources that Hillary's name isn't going to be even allowed on the first ballot which is totally against the rules. They sure seem to be scared of her popularity. So that means that all of us that voted for Hillary will not be counted at the convention at all so we can join Florida and Michigan under the bus.

They don't want Hillary's name to be voted on (5.00 / 2) (#121)
by jawbone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST

bcz she just might win!

The-more-you-get-to-know-some-people,-the-less-you-like-them might be at work here. And they dare not take the chance.

Democracy can be difficult at times....


Sources please. (none / 0) (#53)
by phat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST

That's the second time I've heard about this first ballot thing.

It's rumor and I would like to see where this started.


Heh (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST

I believe the crazy rumor started in The New York Times.


Interesting (none / 0) (#92)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:04:45 PM EST

that Dean is making this call. Isn't Pelosi the one who is supposed to be chairperson over the convention?


: Shrug (none / 0) (#120)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST

I think everyone at the DNC, all the way down to the person who answers the phone, has carte blanche to diss Hillary at the drop of a hat.

Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by phat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM EST

Have they talked to Oprah?

in the mail? smile! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:12:16 PM EST

geez, we have whole states under the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:29:46 PM EST

bus now. i cancelled my order for drapes and am heading for linens and things for something cheaper and easier to move. i was told we'll be bunking up. that ole bus is sure crowded.(snark)

How bout a move to Southern Beaufort Sea Region (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by fctchekr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:32:02 AM EST

Aw darn, Bush is sending the oil companies there to stake out the Polar Bears' digs for future oil, may not be a spot anywhere we can call our own... can you float?


: looks like i'd better get to work on that. (none / 0) (#124)
by hellothere on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:27:34 PM EST

i live on the gulf coast and harrycane season is on us again.

Small donors (5.00 / 6) (#68)
by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:55:15 PM EST

I get why some large donors may not be interested, but I want to know why his small donors, the new voters, young voters, etc.... this is the convention to celebrate Obama's nom... why the heck aren't they donating?

This is their party for their candidate. Why isn't moveon mobilizing people to donate for Denver, why isn't his site mobilizing people to donate for Denver. I read an article that the whole convention budget is $80 million.

I thought part of the argument for Obama was his new voters and the new money they were bringing. This seems like a good test of his supporters. Could be no one wants to give this particular test?

: Not Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 5) (#72)
by blogtopus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:12:43 PM EST

Something shiny... OVER THERE!
The youth vote at its finest.

: The problem is that they've lost (1.00 / 0) (#127)
by derridog on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST

Hillary. Without her to hate, he can't rev up his followers. McCain doesn't inspire hate, just boredom. Plus, all of Obama's followers are certain that he will beat McCain and they hear nothing but how much money O has, so why should they give him more?

Think buyer's remorse... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:56:19 PM EST

The billionaires are clinging to their (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by MarkL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:11 PM EST

money like old guns these days.

: Thank god they aren't (5.00 / 3) (#83)
by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:46:46 PM EST

bitter knitters.
They might be clinging to their yarn!

I'm embarassed (5.00 / 5) (#93)
by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST

I used to be a huge Howard Dean fan. I volunteered on his presidential campaign. I gave to DFA candidates. I remember how happy I was when he became the head of the DNC. I even went to the dinner to celebrate him becoming the new chief. However, since that time, he managed to underfund us in the 2006 midterms, completely f**ked up Florida and Michigan, waited until after Hillary conceded to criticize sexism in the media, and now this...his much desired site of the Democratic National Convention is underfunded.

: I was a big Dean fan, too. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Joelarama on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST

Now I despise him.

I agree up to a point (5.00 / 0) (#103)
by otherlisa on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:32:45 AM EST

except I in no way blame African Americans for this.

: Yikes! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:56:19 AM EST

I didn't mean that the way it sounded because I don't blame them either or the white guys or anyone else for that matter. I just think we need a third party that's functional with Democratic values and less "insider politics."

Money from Florida (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by This from a broad on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:11:54 AM EST

I live in Florida and I am getting begging emails from Obama and the DNC -- TOO FUNNY! If I give money, will it help pay for Donna Brazille's salary? They begrudgingly give me 1/2 a vote and they want me to send them money. I love it!

Send them half a check (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST

as a donation from half a voter. Just remember not to send the signed half. Heh.


: Half a check (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by This from a broad on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:39:08 AM EST

That's a great idea. I think I'll put up a graphic on my blog.

i hear donna has a new love ie telecoms. (none / 0) (#125)
by hellothere on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST

Folks in FL and MI- give HALF a check (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by stefystef on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST

Instead of sending money to the DNC, if you are unhappy with how FL and MI was handled, send half a check without the account number and ABA routing number and write on it:

"Half a Vote gets you Half a Donation".

I saw that somewhere else and I thought it was brilliant!

Let Chicago give the DNC the money since Obama has moved them to his backyard. The "new" coalition can come up with the money.

Green Convention (4.80 / 5) (#15)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:35:38 PM EST

It is my understanding, they are trying to have everything green, including organic food. I'm a Ovo Lacto Vegetarian and my god, I can't afford the soy protein dogs anymore. So, I wonder if they eliminate the "green" theme, if they would save money. Just feed them all mac n cheese. Why not? That's all the Americans can afford these days plus bolognia. UCK!

Go American (5.00 / 5) (#26)
by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:43:31 PM EST

Peanut butter and jelly, and apple pie.

You mean all the food is provided for the entire convention?!


: dunno (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST

I dunno, I was reading comments on other sites but never checked the sources. They surely didn't provide for food at the KY DEM CONV to the delegates. We had only 50 minutes to eat after the caucus votes.

Does this mean all the conventioneers (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by zfran on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST

must bicycle to get there?


: That'll be the day n/t (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST

: I'm a volunteer driver for the convention (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST

They've got "green" cars loaned by GM - they'll use flex fuel (E85 ethanol) made from beer waste from Coors. There will be a designated refueling station and car wash for our dedicated use.
Regular delegates get hauled around on buses from hotels to the Pepsi Center, and they get free passes for light rail and buses.
More important attendees who don't have SS protection - like Dr. Dean - get individual drivers (like me). A driver could be dedicated or "on call" - the first means you tote that attendee around all day (or for a 12 hour shift) for the entire week, the second means you get assigned to various VIPs as the need arises.
The host committee is providing free parking downtown for volunteer drivers, but looked blank when we volunteers asked about reimbursement for light rail instead.

Food shouldn't be that hard (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by nycstray on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST

especially in the west. NYC did it with Farm Aid and NASCAR, Indie 500 etc are also doing the green thing. For Farm Aid, local, sustainable and organic/natural were the goals. All the beer wasn't organic nor do I think all the food was certified organic, but it was still local and/or sustainable. Heck, I even ate a corn dog, which I never do. It was yummy!


: They were planning (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:24 PM EST

to call the free food pantries and see what they could spare....
I hear they get a deal on bread that is only slightly moldy.

lets not forget... (4.50 / 2) (#99)
by p lukasiak on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:53:53 PM EST

that $50,000,000 of your federal tax dollars are going to provide "security" for the Democratic convention.

IMHO, we'd just be better off hiring the Hells Angels, and paying off their victims...

Ahhhhhhhhh, (none / 0) (#18)
by sas on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:36:22 PM EST

it's good news that there is a money shortage.

Good Luck to Denver (none / 0) (#35)
by Dadler on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:54:25 PM EST

Insane Diego ended up in deep sheet after the financial shenanigans that "funded" the '96 Repulican Convention here -- and defunded the city in the process. That convention really started the financial irresponsibility ball rolling down a steep hill here.

I vaguely recall (none / 0) (#74)
by Step Beyond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:20:36 PM EST

I think someone posted that the Obama campaign couldn't legally payoff the Clinton campaign debt.

: He can (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:28 PM EST

but he has to fundraise to do it, or ask his donors to help her out.
Bloomberg has an article about it, also makes it seem like the Obama campaign is conducive.

I heard this too (none / 0) (#104)
by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:47:24 AM EST

And CNN seems to hate Hillary.

I can't say that I am sorry about their funding problems. They should have treated the queen bee better.

How will the DNC pay employees' relocations costs (none / 0) (#118)
by jawbone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM EST

to Chicago?? If money is so tight, what's going to be done for the people told to relocate? Moving ain't cheap--hotels, temp accommodations ain't cheap.

Have any more details come out about the Grand Relocation?

Is it acceptable to advertise on TL? Seems to be (none / 0) (#119)
by jawbone on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST

what this post is doing.