someone let the cat out of the bag

via Atrios, who almost always gets it right

See here. Now, I don't know what they raised, but I'm willing to bet if it were 100 mil we would've heard about it before now.

If you look at Obama's fundraising historically, his numbers this year get skewed by a monstrous February and March where he raised nearly $100 million dollars. The decline since then simply puts him back in his normal range. February was when the enthusiasm around him (and the potential defeat of Clinton) peaked, so it's not surprising that would be the highest fundraising. Also not surprisingly, the Dem leadership appears to have decided to back Obama in February at the peak of his excitement and fundraising numbers. Apparently it never occurred to them that things can change. But, hey, I'm sure if they pound on enough tables and declare Unity, they'll get their hundred million.

To the extent Obama and the DNC expected Clinton donors like me to donate to him, I'm not sure why that would be. He said he was going to take public financing.

Clinton's donors are busy paying Clinton's debt. The only ones who are moving to Obama are big donors who are holding out hope that they can be an Ambassador.

I think Soto missed one explanation for those numbers...

We've been pointing out around here that he peaked in February and has been going downhill ever since, don't these numbers reflect exactly the same trend?

has an interesting theory about this.

My own theory is that Obama had the perfect storm in February/March and he isn't likely to see it again. He had a string of victories making him seem more likely to win, thus attracting some money from folks who wanted to make sure they gave to the winner. Moreover, his base has probably never been bigger or more excited about him, especially in the primary/caucus states he was visiting at the time, so more money there. Finally, there were no doubt Republicans only too happy to have a chance to knock out Clinton and they donated as well. So, perfect storm.

Now, you have the unperfect storm:

1) Obama did nothing after becoming the presumptive nominee to try to win over Clinton fundraisers, voters or women. The public statements often went along the lines of "they'll fall in line." Even if this is right about their votes (and it isn't clear that it is for all of them), that doesn't equal money. Voters may have nowhere else to go, but donors can always just not donate.

2) The enthusiasm for Obama has been falling since February/March and he's only added to that with his recent lurch to the right. He's had bitter-gate, Wright, and now FISA. So the base that was so excited about him in February is probably smaller and less excited.

3) While a factor, I think Clinton's debt is not the major factor, although I'm sure Obama would like folks to think it is because it moves fault from him. But Dems were predicting a $100 million June and Clinton only owes $23 million. A $77 million June would still be the best month he ever had, no? And that would presume Clinton had raised all $23 million (I don't think she has). What Clinton owes is a drop in the bucket compared to what Obama needs to raise and expected to raise. So I don't think that can explain his shortfall, assuming there is one this month.

Obama limped across the finish line while Clinton had been surging. It would not be surprising to me if Obama's fundraising numbers continue to reflect the fact that he had already crested. I expect them to tick up, if only because of all those executives from both parties who will want to donate to the frontrunner.

Obama has done nothing to stop his slide since his peak in February. Clinton suspending may have stopped her campaign, but that alone was never going to be enough to reinvigorate Obama's. The party, of course, never understood that, which is why the focus has always been on WWTSBQ and simply declaring Obama the nominee. But that won't get you voter enthusiasm, donations, or party unity. A candidate has to do that on his own. So far, it appears Obama has no idea how this is done.

Wasn't the main reason the Dem party poobahs were all lining up behind Obama, sheer greed? They were all going to be swimming in Obamabucks!!! Now they know what Obama means when he says he's a "change agent", as in "chump change".

According to the Guardian, McCain is on pace to raise about $400 million and he also has the following cash advantage:

In addition to what he raises himself, McCain will have access to the funds of the cash-rich Republican party - about $68m - while Obama will have only modest help from the Democratic party, which has about $3m at its disposal.

Meanwhile, Obama dismisses the WSJ article that says he only raised $30 million in June as "way off the mark." Still, it's pointed out that Obama will fall "significantly short" of the total money needed to meet the GE budget.

At the end of the day, I fear that the media, not money, will determine who wins in November. Sigh.

Thanks.

second the motion

Unity!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.