Well here is the thing. Clinton has proven sustainability. Obama has 80% positive media coverage yet lost the popular vote? Please. A majority of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton was negative. 70%+ of the coverage of Bill Clinton was negative. So Clinton has proven her sustainability.

this is all her fault..
entirely.

mark penn isn't worth 4 million.

You completely missed the point. You don't need money to win. Huckabee can vouch for that. What you need is good media to get your message through. Last fall the media coronated Clinton and she hit 50% in an 8-man race. She stumbled in a debate and she fell 10%+. It's all media. Any fool can see that.

But those Democratic states will still be Democratic in the general Election.  He picked up new states that Hillary will not be able to.

Nothing is written in stone.

But Hillary has a 16 year advantage of name ID to go on. That counts for more than even I knew.

I have been working on the Obama campaign (for free) and I have constantly dealing with people who had literally no concept of who Obama was.  And this was two weeks before the primary. I am not complaining: It is simply the lay of the land.  I was shocked how many people did not know who he was other than he was other than to say the black guy running against Hillary. Name ID is a much larger hurdle than I ever imagined.

But to try and describe Hillary as being at a disadvantage is simply preposterous. She has been working toward this moment for over 8 years now. She is the Senator from NY and the wife of a 2 term President.  

And as for the core democratic states, you simply prove my point. Name ID and institutional support go a long way for folks in blue states to pull the lever for the favorite. They will support our nominee, be it Clinton or Obama in the fall.

WTF, what about Illinois and MN?

Minnesota is the very definition of a core Democratic state. And Obama won it overwhelmingly.

I thought Delaware, Illinois, and Connecticut were "core Democratic states"- to say nothing of purple states like Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado.

Do your research. Still MSM was asking for "alternatives". The theme was "how to stop Hillary".

Yeah.  I have been on her list since the 2000 campaign and get some campaign emails, but not any solicitations.

really? i get those dumbass e-mails once a day.

Internet fundraising doesn't just "start".

It grows and gets cultivated.  HRC is going to have a REALLY tough time getting people to open their wallets during the first week of Feb.

To clarify -- I get a thank you immediately each time.  Just no follow up solicitation.

He'll do a lot better than that. People will pour money into his campaign as long as there is a horse race with HRC. Look for $50 million by the end of Feb. The Clinton machine is about to get pummeled.

Well, if it uses either Rezko or Obama's voting record in the IL senate it could sink him. Won't matter who funded it after the whole country is talking about how Obama voted putting sex shops next to schools or to keep sexual abuse victims from sealing their records.

Besides, with Robert Gibbs on his team, what can Obama do? Whine and say it's not fair? Or scream about how it's racist? Remember Gibbs was the one that ran the Dean/Osama ad 4 years ago.

You're funny. Who said Boratgate was below the belt? All I saw was that it was stupid, that's why it sank like a stone.

I do wish, though, that Clinton would actually try to damage Obama. You guys obviously have no limits, but for some reason she does not want to take Obama down that way.

It's not just the Clinton campaign, it's every news org out there....

I'm with you.

No way -- NO CHANCE -- that a Dem. contributes to a 527 that slashes Obama and wants to avoid becoming a pariah in the Dem. Party.

From their perspective (unions, etc..), jeebus:  I mean, why if you are a contributor would you do that unless you were 100% certain you would win.

And no one is that stupid.  And no one is that stupid to contribute millions for such a cause.

I made my first donation just now.

I can't afford to give a lot, at least right now, but since people here say having donors who give only small amounts is a good thing, I went ahead.  ;-)

oops.. now it's $4.3 million

of fundraisers?

Her base is maxed out... She can't do those 500K or million dollar fundraisers.  She's out of people who can afford 2K a plate dinners.

McCain isn't - that's why he can take a day away and do a big fundraiser... there are still big bundlers out there who haven't dropped him a dime and are now willing to grudgingly buy their access - LOTS of them.

On the D side -- all those folks have already ponied up.  The big Obama bundlers AND the big HRC bundlers.  The difference is that Obama big donor group is about 15% of his fundraising number.  For Clinton - it's closer to 85%.

She needs to get by now with small donations... but you can just spin that up because things suddenly got tough.

She's in trouble.

She needs an upset - and soon.  Definitely no later than Tuesday or Obama can blanket Texas with ads, camp in Ohio --- and just decide in the last week of February which one to win and deliver the knockout.

Your argument doesn't contradict what the person said. First, most of the money always comes from big contributors. (Just like our tax system.) And $100 is a lot of money to people in the $30,000 range. Not as much to people in the $75,000 range.

The DKos diary of it has him up to 3.7 right now.  He may actually pull in 5 million in 24 hours!

If it's a ploy, it's another failed one and a big miscalculation.  Didn't they learn anything from January when they released that they raised more money than Barack in Q4, so Plouffe sent an email let's make up the difference and they raised 8 million in a week.  And now with this news, Plouffe immediately sent out an email let's match it and already they're edging 4 million already in the 21 hours since the polls closed.  

As far as the media strategists, one of the criticisms of Democratic media strategists in years past was their incentive to run expensive TV ads for which they got paid a percentage of the expenditure as opposed to exploring more effective media strategies that might be less lucrative to the strategist.