First, let's set the stage.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) started moving into his "permanent" 33,000-square foot national campaign headquarters on the 11th floor of 233 N. Michigan in downtown Chicago on March 30, 2007.
By July 2007, the Obama campaign had expanded into a second location on the 10th floor of 300 W. Adams that was to be "used as a home for volunteers and Illinois field operations, freeing up space in the main headquarters."
Don't go looking for Obama's "new politics" here. Without recounting the details, many of which can be found in this June 2007 article, suffice it to say that Obama's campaign headquarters was staffed by "about 100 employees in Chicago alone, part of a national staff [then] totaling roughly 200", including "key veterans of the 2004 John Kerry campaign as well as a co-founder of the social networking Web site Facebook."
Keep in mind, Sen. Obama had barely announced his bid for the presidency in February, not a single debate had been held, not a single caucus or primary vote cast, and already the Obama campaign had expanded operations along downtown Chicago's prime real estate.
Today's issue? Well, inquiring minds like RW and the head blogger at Anglachel's Journal would like to know when the plan was approved to move the DNC's operations and merge it with that of the Obama headquarters in Chicago.
If the DNC has already relocated to Chicago, as reported by the commenter Molly in the Hillary Clinton Forum, then the plan to move was approved months ago.
I've been involved in the merger of two good sized US corporations. It's not something that can be done at the drop of a hat. Costs have to be scoped, budgets established, plans made, landlords current and prospective contacted, vendors hired, bills paid, accounts closed in DC and opened in Chicago, equipment purchased, staff relocated, reassigned and/or terminated, letterhead and business cards printed, signage created, phone service changed, and that's just the stuff off the top of my head.
I'm not buying the claim that it was a recent decision, quickly executed. Who knew about the merger and when did they know it what remains to be unearthed. Not a word of this was out in the blogs or in the news before this week thatI am aware of. How did such a major logistical operation remain under wraps?
This observation is spot on. What major corporation would make such a move without detailed advance preparations?
Anglachel's Journal nails the issue on its pointy little head:
Over the last few months I have tried to express my concerns for what the Obama campaign is doing to the Democratic Party. While I am a dyed in the wool Hillary supporter, my objections to what Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Obama, et. al., are doing to the party are swiftly growing larger than whether or not Hillary was treated fairly in the campaign or even whether she was cheated out of the nomination. We are talking about a hostile takeover of the party.
Updates
Superinvestor Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway--who with his daughter Susan early on spotted presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as a comer -- will headline a $28,500-per-person fund-raiser (to raise or give) July 2 at the Chicago home of Obama finance chair Penny Pritzker. Sharing host duties will be Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Whatever happened to those $2,300 campaign contribution limits?
6 comments:
I might look into DNC finances, here, too.
They really might be hurting.
It goes without question that the DNC has big time financial problems, particularly since Dean has mismanaged things so badly. The blowback has already resulted in a shortage of funds for the convention in Denver, with the events being scaled back due to lack of funds. Large numbers of former DNC citizen supporters have just been saying "no" to the DNC, unsubscribed from DNC emails, ignore DNC calls for financial support (we won't go into the way written pleas have been returned to the DNC in shreds, pieces and emblazoned with directions for use). The DNC did this to itself. If it sees the Obamaviks as the solution to its problems, then the DNC as many have known it in past decades will be nothing more than a fond memory.
$28,500 is what one person can donate to a political party in an election cycle, I believe. $2,300 is what an individual can donate to a candidate's campaign.
In that case, 16 lashes with a wet noodle for Lynn Sweet. She should have made it C-L-E-A-R that this was a destitute DNC fundraiser.
The BO campaign and the DNC entered a relationship weeks ago which takes advantage of a very specific (and by definition, legal) loophole in campaign financing: individuals who have already hit their $2300 limit on a campaign, may, under this deal, contribute up to $28500, ostensibly to a national party (such as the DNC), a chunk of which may legally find its way back to the campaign.
When this cozy relationshp was announced (again, weeks ago) the official stance of the DNC was that an offer to enter into such an agreement was made to both BO's and HC's campaigns, but HC declined.
Nothing like spending $28,500 on a clean, eloquent sock puppet.
Post a Comment