Not really. While Bush outraised Gore pretty significantly in 2000, the difference between Kerry and Bush money in 2004 was only about $35 million, or slightly less than the RNC spent on Palin's close.

Clothes even. God I can't type today.

Fark off Karl.

And so it continues...
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

Uhg. I felt dirty after seeing the name on that link.

He's right though, money talks. Unfortunately, Obama had a much, much broader base of supporters willing to donate money to him in this campaign.

Of the two, I think the right candidate won though, but we'll have to see how he does.

That would give voters the tools they need to determine if a candidate is getting too much from unattractive people.

The ugly voters have a right to be heard too, dammit!!

/STFU Rove, you cock.

that charge really loses it's meaning when a huge chunk of that money came from small donations from normal citizens.

if political contributions count as free speech, then you'd have to view obama's fundraising as america shouting the republicans out of the room.

Obama had more money because more people supported him. Is it that difficult to figure out?

Oh, that's right, terrorists snuck him millions of dollars somehow through ACORN or something.

If McCain had more money to get his message out, more people would have known how badly he sucked as a candidate.

It seems to me this charge is always trumped up by the loser. It was 4 years ago, and it will in 4 years.

Besides the fact that Obama was a better candidate, the election came down to three terrible words: Sarah Farking Palin.

The tears of a Turd Blossom, how very, very touching.

Fark off, Rove. You're a farking hypocrite.

CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way -- 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more.

$200 is not a large donor. Over 3 million different people donated to Obama's campaign, which is unprecedented and yes, does make a good argument that the donations were a form of political expression.

But Rove wants this: It is time to trust the American people and remove limits on how much an individual can donate to a campaign.

Only because things were better for Republicans when a handful of their wealthy donors could buy the election. That's what this douchebag is painting as democratic.

I'd much rather have the candidate required to rally millions of individual donors to get that kind of money. The Republicans just want to be able to do it with a few really rich people.

Whatever helps soothe (rationalize) your butthurt, Karl.

burndtdan: that charge really loses it's meaning when a huge chunk of that money came from small donations from normal citizens.

Truly.

I have never donated to a political candidate, but I made a few small donations, especially when they'd e-mail and say they had matching donations that day... so I knew someone else would double what I could afford to give.

A LOT of people did that. I don't imagine McCain had lower-income/middle class people saying "I can spare $20, I should give it to this candidate I really want to see be our next President."

That's funny, because before the election, the WSJ always claimed that money was equivalent to free speech.

Why do they hate free speech all of a sudden?

Hey, when you're the big stack, going all in is the way to win.

74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200)

I wonder if those rich bastards flew their private jets to Chicago to give Obama that couple hundred personally? Goddam elites make me sick.

burndtdan: if political contributions count as free speech, then you'd have to view obama's fundraising as america shouting the republicans out of the room.

well said

It's amazing what a motivated electorate can do when they're not being cowed by fear, isn't it Karl?

This has got to be a joke. Seriously, is this a joke?

Wow. The WSJ is really swinging for the fences today.

What a waste of money, something scraped off the bottom of a work boot could beat the best game the Republicans currently have going.

sigdiamond2000: This has got to be a joke. Seriously, is this a joke?

Wow. The WSJ is really swinging for the fences today.

Its an Op-Ed. That you and everyone one else here read.

Looks like they win.

gustakooka: Its an Op-Ed. That you and everyone one else here read.

I sincerely doubt that.

sigdiamond2000: gustakooka: Its an Op-Ed. That you and everyone one else here read.

I sincerely doubt that.

You mean, people would comment on an article they haven't read?

What is this world coming to?

Going for a wild pig trifecta?

I love how you guys are biatching about this but don't mention that if it wasn't true then Obama would have just taken public funding.

Keep attacking the man and not the words. Maybe a few more baby pictures?

Erm... Well... More like the millions of individuals that contributed small amounts of money to the Obama campaign bought the election.

Better than the usual buying of the election by a much smaller number of very wealthy donors.

Isnt that why he was given the money?

MorrisBird: The tears of a Turd Blossom, how very, very touching.

Diarrhea? Two men, one election...

As usual, Karl Rove TELLS IT LIKE IT IS!!! McCain would have totally won if he had more money. McCain's loss had nothing to do with his message, running mate, economic circumstance, or the popularity of his opponent. The Republicans should continue the exact same message in 2010, but with more money. It's sure to work this time.

Whoever is better at cheating wins. The D's were better than the R's this time. Go big O

Republicans whining that they didn't get enough handouts...

yes he bought the election, and yes, a lot of the money he used to do so came from other countries.

But nobody is whining about it.

a good election stays bought.

deltabourne: I love how you guys are biatching about this but don't mention that if it wasn't true then Obama would have just taken public funding.

Keep attacking the man and not the words. Maybe a few more baby pictures?

Karl Rove could be commenting on the loveliness of roses, and we would still farking hate him for it.

It is time to trust the American people and remove limits on how much an individual can donate to a campaign.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No. You're pissed because you and your rich friends could only donate a few grand to McCain instead of a few hundred grand so you could get some kickbacks.

another dime a dozen whining Conservative Crony Capitalist newspaper complaining about money(the vast majority of Obama's contributions were 100 dollars or less)

only in America could you see this level of Hypocrisy.

All modern elections are purchased. The difference is that this one was purchased by me and millions like me who gave to the campaign instead of special interests.

\yes, I am willing to pay higher taxes to pull W's UF from the country's A.

Wow, it's as if there's a strong correlation between how many people want to donate money to a candidate and how many people are planning to vote for that candidate...

WOW! The guy who raised and spent the most money won the election. The only time this has ever happened before is.... every other presidential election.

Sorry.

A REPUBLICAN court ruled that money is equivalent to speech, and thus cannot be restricted in a campaign.

It's quite amazing to hear the Republicans complain about this. Talk about hypocrisy. There is a special place in hell for all of you.

Postal Penguin: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No. You're pissed because you and your rich friends could only donate a few grand to McCain instead of a few hundred grand so you could get some kickbacks.

THIS!

"Google, Schmidt have the ear of Obama administration"

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_11015890

"Google Inc $701,099"

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N000 09638

Oops, doesn't looks so good when it's against your guy, does it?

From TFA:Ironically, the victim of this broken system is one of its principal architects -- Mr. McCain. He helped craft the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform along with Sen. Russ Feingold in 2002.

That's not irony; that's just deserts.

McCain-Feingold is a farking abomination.

oh look...they don't think it has anything to do with their overwhelming incompetence, negativity, and complete inability to vet anyone from VP candidates to fake plumbers.

Absolutely adorable *toussles neocons' hair*

Karl Fat-Head Rove: He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm ...

I was waiting till he'd come out with his bullsh-t. What ever was buried was dead a long time before the election. This from a man who's head is identical to a lump of uncooked doe.

/what a dumbass

Once again, I'm pissed at the anti-commenting position of WSJ.

/comment want.

I gave almost $2000 to the Obama campaign. They did an excellent job in marketing and strategizing to the right voters. Over the course of around 3 months I gave $100 here and $100 there until it added up. I am not a big business nor am I a lobbyist or anything of the type. Just a normal American who saw the economy going down the tanks and an ineffective government with a person who risked being elected protrayed as even more ineffective.

I think the day I saw McCain on CNN talking about our economy being strong while the Dow was down -400 is a day I gave Obama $250.

Piss off Republicans.. stop whining. If you were that bothered you would have donated some of your hard earned money instead of expecting big business to do it all for you.