Did Someone Kill Obama's Golden Goose?

The New York Times is reporting that despite raising gajillions of dollars during the campaign, the Obama team may find themselves in financial difficulties after turning down public financing:

After months of record-breaking fund-raising, a new sense of urgency in Senator Barack Obama’s fund-raising team is palpable as the full weight of the campaign’s decision to bypass public financing for the general election is suddenly upon it.

Senator Barack Obama, who spoke Monday in Flint, Mich., has bypassed federal financing, giving him more freedom but requiring continuing fund-raising.
Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”

At a convention-week meeting in Denver of the campaign’s top fund-raisers, buttons with the image of a money tree were distributed to those who had already contributed the maximum $2,300 to the general election, a subtle reminder to those who had failed to ante up.

The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.

Presidential candidates in a general election have typically relied on two main sources of money: public financing, along with additional money their parties raise. In choosing to accept the public money, the McCain campaign now gets an $84 million cash infusion from the United States Treasury. Mr. McCain is barred from raising any more money for his own campaign coffers but can lean on money raised by the Republican National Committee, which has continued to exceed expectations.

Meanwhile, Obama campaign officials had calculated that with its vaunted fund-raising machine, driven by both small contributors over the Internet and a powerful high-dollar donor network, it made more sense to forgo public financing so they could raise and spend unlimited sums.

But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

So, why would the NY Times run this piece? If it was focused on a Republican you could be pretty sure the intent was to ridicule the GOP's progress. But with a Democrat, you can't make that same assumption. You have to consider the possibility that the Times is doing this to stir potential Obama donors to action.

If you think it's bad now, just watch and see what happens if the Palinomania turns out to be a real surge and not just a convention bounce. Some folks will decide it's not smart to through more good money after bad, and Obama could find himself in a real cash crisis as the final days of the campaign draw near.

In addition, Hillary is still mad because she has gotten surprisingly little help from the Obama campaign with her campaign debt, and I think part of her endorsement was based on getting some funds. Don't look for a lot of enthusiasm out of her.