Obama raised more than $100 million in September, according to the NYT

[freedomburns]

Obama’s Ad Effort Swamps McCain and Nears Record
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 17, 2008

With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels, Mr. Obama is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states.

The huge gap has been made possible by Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of the federal campaign finance system, which gives presidential nominees $84 million in public money and prohibits them from spending any amount above that from their party convention to Election Day. Mr. McCain is participating in the system. Mr. Obama, who at one point promised to participate in it as well, is expected to announce in the next few days that he raised more than $100 million in September,a figure that would shatter fund-raising records.

“This is uncharted territory,” said Kenneth M. Goldstein, the director of the Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin. “We’ve certainly seen heavy advertising battles before. But we’ve never seen in a presidential race one side having such a lopsided advantage.”
(more at link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18ads.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This, plus the fact that the NYT is going to come out with an endorsement  for Barak Obama tomorow means you can stick a fork in McCain.  He's done.

[freedomburns]

Naw, I'm serious.  My post makes it sound like the NYT endorsement is the reason I think it's over.  The NYT endorsement is pretty much a given.  It won't swing a lot of independents to the Obama camp, IMHO. 

What it does do is cap a huge lead that Obama has racked up in newspaper endorsements, including many that are owned by conservative Republicans.  Many of these papers backed GWB in 2004.  Here is a source from Editor and Publisher, which cites a lead of 58-16 in newspaper endorsements.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875479

FRIDAY ENDORSEMENTS: Surprising Boosts for Obama from Denver and Salt Lake Papers -- Also Endorsed by 'AJC," 'KC Star' and 'Sun-Times'

By Greg Mitchell

Published: October 17, 2008 9:15 PM ET

The Denver Post, which had backed George W. Bush in 2004 and is owned by Republican-leaning William Dean Singleton, this evening endorsed Barack Obama for president. So did the Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star. Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to top it off: two more Bush backers in 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune and Las Cruces (N.M) Sun-News.

This followed this afternoon's surprises: the Chicago Tribune, which has never in 150 years endorsed a Democrat, backed Obama, as did its fellow Tribune paper, the Los Angeles -- which had endorsed no one in more than 30 years. It seems like a dam broke yesterday with the unexpectedly early choice of Obama by The Washington Post.

In E&P's exclusive count, Obama now leads 62-18 in editorial endorsements. New additions for him include the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer and The Oregonian of Portland. Check out our running list, updated Saturday here.

Colorodo, of course, is a key swing state. Georgia is also now, surprisingly, in play and the Atlanta paper is the state's largest.

The Salt Lake paper complained that "out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.

"Still, we have compelling reasons for endorsing Obama on his merits alone. Under the most intense scrutiny and attacks from both parties, Obama has shown the temperament, judgment, intellect and political acumen that are essential in a president that would lead the United States out of the crises created by President Bush, a complicit Congress and our own apathy."

The Kansas City paper also hit McCain hard for choosing an "unqualfied" running mate.

<...>


This, plus the fact that Obama is currently outspending McCain 4-1 on television advertising in key swing states is why I am confident that McCain will lose this election.   The NYT endorsement is nothing more than a bit of icing on a well-baked cake.

When Obama does win, I plan to camp out on this forum and crow about it for days.  You are all welcome to tune in to hear me rant and jive about how we have taken our country back, and about how we are determined to turn it into a socialist paradise for all to enjoy. 

[freedomburns]

Wow, J. J. STILL can't figure out the meaning of Vorlon's 80% comment.

HA!  Why does this not surprise me?  Some people have a natural aversion to understanding facts and figures.

[freedomburns]

It's 640 million I think now.  (604 by October 1st. 36 million first two weeks of October)

Do you think it was a good idea of rhim to opt out of public financing, then?