When Sen. Obama’s imperial presence deemed it apt to break his own word in regard to public financing, a lofty goal of $300 million was set for the final months of the election. This number was to be gained in three installments of $100 million and in a manner which kept Obama on the trail and out of fundraisers. This seemed like a good plan, especially due to Sen. Obama’s inclination to speak his rather disdainful attitudes when ensconced in the comfort of a finance reception. But so far, this grand three-month plan has gone wrong. The DNC is lagging far behind the RNC in fundraising and Obama’s team has been unable to tax Clinton supporters to the degree that they first believed they could. Obama’s team seems also to be running into a wall where donors and potential donors are simply tapped out. Subsequently, Obama has missed his first month’s goal and indications abound that this shortfall may continue. Yet, have no doubt, Obama will still have substantial financial resources this fall.
Senator Obama, has, for the large part spent his way to success. However, his distributions during the general election have been bizarre, pie in the sky, and overly ambitious. Obama’s initial electoral strategy called for serious financial commitments in over 20 states. Included in these were reliably GOP states like Georgia and Alaska as well as the usual suspects of Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Missouri. Strangely Obama has also made small commitments of money in places like West Texas and Utah. Obama can indeed raise money like the dickens, but he has shown, that he also has the will to spend it like the Tsars, Louis the XVI and Rachel Maddow.
One example of this is in Obama’s efforts to send paid voter registration teams to places like Chicago and New York City. While voter registration can turn the tide in a close state like Colorado, its use in a solidly blue state like New York is dubious at best.
Another case is in regard to Obama’s expenditures in the State of Georgia. Obama has spent over $2 million in a state that the GOP won in 2004 handily. For his investment Obama fought to within 6-9 points of McCain, which obviously isn’t enough to win the state. Now Obama seems to be pulling out of Georgia, but oddly his team seems happy with the Georgia results noting how far they were able to cut into the GOP’s 2004 margin. If these indications pan out Obama will have succeeded in wasting $2 million in the state for no real return.
Now take a look at Alaska. For a time it looked like Obama might be able to capture this state. Some polls even had him even with McCain and so in Obama logic the campaign put financial resources into the State. Then Gov. Palin made it on the GOP ticket and put Alaska out of reach by 20 points. With the Palin development it would make sense that Obama would pull out of Alaska. After all, why waste money on a state that you trail in by such a margin. Obama’s team, however, insists that they are still going to push forward in Alaska, a financial decision that should send rational minds out the window.
Sen. Obama has repeatedly shown a lack of financial sense in his campaign. When faced with tough decisions on where to spend money he seems to be keen on spending it everywhere. Instead of using financial sense to run his campaign, Obama seems to prefer a policy of simply taxing his contributors over and over again. His distribution of campaign funds lacks sense and his proclivity to go back to the well for more is disturbing. This policy raises serious questions about his ability to manage a complex budget. His own behavior exemplifies the fundamental idea of "tax and spend" in epic style.
Sen. Obama is very fond of using the argument that he has managed a campaign as a qualification to be President. I think Americans should acknowledge that argument. Acknowledge it and then take a serious look at how exactly Sen. Obama has been running his campaign. What they will see is a financial house of cards that is frightening and a will to tax supporters and waste money that is downright Roman in scale.