Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since Super Tuesday

Please Contribute to MyDD Today

So much for that 2 to 1 fundraising edge Obama supposedly had after Super Tuesday.

From The AP:

Democrat Barack Obama raised $7.2 million and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton collected $6.4 million since Super Tuesday, as he continued to resist a Clinton campaign clamoring for attention-getting debates.

The remarkable outpouring of contributions recorded since Tuesday's contests in 22 states comes on the heels of an eye-popping $32 million raised by Obama in January and the record-shattering $100 million each Obama and Clinton raised in 2007 in their neck-and-neck race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

For Clinton, this statistic is particularly important:

While not matching Obama's pace, Clinton also saw an online surge of donations from 35,000 new contributors since midnight Tuesday, Clinton campaign aides said.

With a stable of maxed out donors, expanding her donor base was crucial for Clinton.

The overall fundraising number also represents a fairly masterful management of expectations on the Clinton campaign's part. On February 6th the campaign released the surprising information that Clinton had loaned herself $5M in January, which had a dual effect: it made Clinton seem weak, which then motivated her base to pony up. And with a $3M goal for 72 hours, the bar was set rather low so that reaching that amount in 1 day instead of 3 was a sign of unexpected strength, exactly the good news Clinton needed to stem any Obama momentum.

The net result: notice that the above AP article frames the race between Clinton and Obama as "neck and neck," a sentiment echoed on the front pages of today's Wall St. Journal: "Deadlocked Democrats" and The New York Times "Close Race, Democrats Brace For The Long Haul." The reality is that Obama's performance on Tuesday was phenomenal relative to his position just weeks ago but how is it reported?

Again from the Times: "Obama Is Making Inroads, But Fervor Fell Short.

Update [2008-2-7 18:57:3 by Todd Beeton]:Oh, and remember all that talk of Clinton staffers going without pay? Turns out they offered to but never actually did. Again, display weakness so your subsequent strength is all the more surprising.

Update [2008-2-7 19:51:15 by Todd Beeton]:Keep in mind that the 6.4M was actually raised in just over a day, beginning probably late Tuesday night, to Thursday morning when Terry McCauliffe reported the following on a conference call:

Terry McAuliffe, the national chairman for the Clinton campaign, is reporting right now on a conference call with the campaign’s finance committee that the campaign has raised $7.5 million online in the first week February, with about $6.4 million of that in the last 24 or 30 hours.

Raising this kind of money online in such a short time is not supposed to be Clinton's strength. It's amusing to watch Clinton benefit from continued low expectations. Certainly her campaign knows it and is exploiting it brilliantly. Many Obama fans think that all Obama needs to do is campaign somewhere and people who like Hillary Clinton, inevitably portrayed as "low information voters," will come around. It's just this condescending and naive view of Clinton's support around the country that is hurting Obama in the expectations game. As I've written many times (most recently HERE,) Obama supporters underestimate the love out there for Hillary Clinton at their peril.



Display:


one thing I learned in the past six months (2.00 / 2)

is that there is a lot of grass-roots support for Hillary. Not among the usual progressive activist types, but she has hard-core support in the base of the Democratic Party that goes beyond name recognition.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:52:52 PM EST

Re: one thing I learned in the past six months (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. It annoys me to no end to hear the implication from Obama supporters that she's been coasting on name recognition of low-information voters. (As if nobody in Florida could have heard of Obama other than through TV commercials.)

Hillary Clinton has broad and deep support within the Democratic Party. We may not be as collectively wealthy as the Obama supporters, but we're pretty dedicated too.


by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one thing I learned in the past six months (2.00 / 1)

"WE" can what? Turn out for a rally? Send donations? How does that affect who serves for president? (By the way, if you think it will affect the Republicans, forget it. How did Gingrich characterize the large anti-war demonstrations? He said in SF that's a cheap date.)

One of the most telling comments from the debate is when Hillary reminded people there is only one commander-in-chief. That may not seem very fair or egalitarian but it's reality.

That's why many of us chose her for her 35 years of experience. Unlike Obama she has extensive work experience in both the private and public sector. (Yes she sat on the board of Wal-Mart but Michelle Obama sat on the board of a company whose biggest customer was Wal-Mart.) She has help enact legislation on local, state, and federal level. She has worked across the aisle with Republicans to enact major pieces of legislation for foster care and children's health. She has traveled to over 82 countries on diplomatic missions.

In the last few weeks, Obama has also revealed some character flaws that are troubling. Notably his seeming inability to handle criticism. Now it's his refusal to engage in more one to one debates. For all his campaign's hype, he's not really the front-runner so avoiding it is a dodge.  


by cath on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one thing I learned in the past six months (none / 0)

WE can change our country. Our communities, our neighbors, our representatives.

There is only one President (who is Commander-in-Chief of the MILITARY forces, I refuse to use the Bush framing that's the president is commander-in-chief of us all).

Hillary doesn't want my help. She wants my vote, to get her into power so she can arrange my life as she thinks would benefit everyone.

Obama wants my vote, so he can get into power to make a country where I have the power to arrange my life and those around me.

Glad you admitted that HRC is still the front runner!


by MNPundit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: one thing I learned in the past six months (none / 0)

People like me.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 4)

I found someone willing to match my donations to Hillary dollar-for-dollar.

Unfortunately, it was my wife.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:03 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

That's sweet.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Good she is following Obama's lead, fundraising that is.


by tracey webb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Good job for both of them.

As a side note. Chances are McCain is going to secure the 1,191 delegates to be nominated. If he names a VP, and the Democrats are still in a deadlock, I think we need to seriously start deliberations and maybe strike a deal between the two candidates.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:55:10 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

McCain's got it.  I don't know where we go from here.  Mathematically, neither candidate can achieve the nomination with pledged delegates between they're "trading" and "sharing" victories, to wit New York/Illinois; and Missouri.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

Howard Dean is right that we certainly can't run an 8-week general election campaign.

However, I don't think we have to panic the moment McCain locks it up.  We have a very high-profile race on the Dem side and McCain is likely to get covered on page A20 for the duration.  He may be out there campaigning, but let's face it, he's not Barack Obama on the stump.  He's not even Bob Dole on the stump.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

I don't know...

If they agree to be civil and (at least privately)each promises to name the other as their running mate, a drawn out battle into the convention would be riveting theater and probably guarantee victory in November.


99% perspiration
by DaveOinSF on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

Here's a great post from HuffPo that explains some of the nuts-and-bolts practical reasons why it would be really bad to not have a nominee before the convention.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

That is a terrific link.  The kind of "inside baseball" most of us never think of.

Also, it mentions that the Nevada delegates are not "real" delegates - they can change before the convention. I remember hearing that right after the Nevada caucuses, too.  How likely is it that they will change?  Are the Nevada delegates being counted in the various delegate totals?


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

If McCain names his VP and we don't have a nominee, I want a Clinton/Obama ticket, orchestrated by the campaigns and DNC. They could make it happen. I don't think we will be at a disadvantage if don't have a nominee You're right, our candidates will get the coverage and as long as they stay in good behavior, it reflects good on our Party. But, we are all desperate to win the White House.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Sure, but if the focus is on him then he loses out - at least if there's a nominee on our side willingly to smack him about a bit with a wet trout.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Oh lord, get over it.  The country wants someone to get us out of Iraq.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Instead of living in the past... (none / 0)

...Let's look to the future and bring an end to the war in Iraq.


by andrewalker08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 2)

I'm sure the obama folks will say "no big deal" to Clinton's haul even though they were shitting themselves last night when OBAMA raised that amount.


by werd2406 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:57:18 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

Seems to me you have some issues to deal with unrelated to this campaign. You might want to button that up before posting on a public blog.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

We say no big deal because we will do it again on Monday. How about you? Think you can raise another 6 mil on Monday?


by aiko on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

I'll be happy to give Hillary the PR advantage for now but when all the votes are counted Obama will win the nomination.

I remember a few months she was vey high in the polls and she was going to blow Obama out on Feb. 5th. Well, that didn't happen and her campaign is going broke now. What's more, she wants more debates? A lil free media can't hurt when it's that bad


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:58:01 PM EST

If being broke means raising $6.4 million... (2.00 / 2)

...In three days, then I want to be broke too.


by andrewalker08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If being broke means raising $6.4 million... (2.00 / 1)

hahahahha


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 2)

when all the votes are counted Obama will win the nomination.

Actually, I think you are going to need to change that talking point, is there any doubt that Clinton will lead in the popular vote from all the votes?


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 2)

Although I have been active in politics for over forty years and contribute handsomely locally, I never contributed to a national campaign before.
I did this morning for HRC - because she is the best remaining candidate and I am sick and tired of the sanctimonious OB-ocrats and their substance-challenged change mantra.
And I will do it again later if the need arises!
by w4856228 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:00:13 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

"substance-challenged"

love it.

Hi, my name is Barack, and I'm substance-challenged.

GROUP: Hi, Barack.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

For the first time we have not one, but TWO candidates that charge up the entire party and we, because are democrats, look a gift horse in the mouth and begin again with the in-fighting.  

How about a narrative where in 48 hours we have nearly matched half of McCain's fundraising for the ENTIRE campaign?


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

My thoughts as well.  It doesn't do any good to insult the other candidate or his/her supporters; feelings on the losing side will be hard enough without that, and no responsible voter would want to wake up after the election and hear "President-Elect McCain".


by beerwulf on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Is a brilliant tactician.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:00:37 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

I believe, in the depths of my soul, Hillary clinton will be our nominee and our next president. I doubt I am the only one with such beliefs.


by americanincanada on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:06:38 PM EST

Display your weakness? (2.00 / 1)

More like "play your base for rubes". So lets see there's a desperate plea for money, Clinton puts in $5 mil of her own money, the Clinton camp indicates top staff are going without pay, sympathy and the outpouring follow and money comes in hand over fist, but wait then reports come out the campaign is doing just fine, oh and by the way no staffer ever went unpaid. Sorry folks but you've just been had. Welcome to the world of Clinton politics.


by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST

Media and Obama rubes (2.00 / 2)

More like playing the media and Obama for rubes. We had another one of those Clinton will quit race diaries yesterday, comedy gold. You would think after three or four times you guys wouldn't go for the bait, but she gets you every time. Clinton supporters know better than to trust what the media says about Democrats.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Media and Obama rubes (none / 0)

Clinton knows that the only media coverage she will get is when they have a juicy negative narrative to beat into the ground. So, she gave them one and let the media hatchet men do her fund raising for her.

You would think the media would figure it out one of these days. The more they attack the Clintons, the more people go to bat for Bill and Hillary. But, I guess that kind of putting 2 and 2 together is beyond the pack of frat boys and their sorority babes in the media.


by hwc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Display your weakness? (none / 0)

Let's see, if giving money to your candidate means you're a rube, then the Obama supporters must be even bigger rubes.  Since they gave more money and all.


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LAAAAME (none / 0)

So it comes down to lying to make money for a struggling campaign?


"I don't want to wake up [to] one of those cable talk shows, and see that Washington is still stuck in the same food fight it's been in for over a decade."
by obama is ready on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST

Re: Learn to read (2.00 / 3)

Nobody was "had". Can you not read? I know it's hard sometimes to actually seek out the facts but you should at least try.

Clinton's staff offered to go without pay. The contributions that came in assured that it did not have to happen. NO ONE in the Clinton camp ever said people were already going without pay. That was just MSM and desperate Obamabot spin.

Hillary never send out a plea to small donors before in the campaign. She has now and we are responding.

Rise Hillary, Rise.


by americanincanada on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:31 PM EST

Re: Learn to read (none / 0)

Yeah, reading is fundamental...

"Clinton's campaign staff have voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month, a source within the campaign told NBC News."

Members of Senator Hillary Clinton's senior campaign staff have agreed to work without pay for the month of February.  Communications Director Howard Wolfson called the move "a show of solidarity with Hillary Clinton".- ABC News

Clinton's campaign also disclosed that several senior staff members, including her campaign manager, were voluntarily working without pay. - Chicago Tribune

Some senior staffers on her campaign also are voluntarily forgoing paychecks as the campaign heads into the next round of contests. Clinton said the loan and salary deferrals were not a sign of financial difficulties. - Yahoo news


by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Learn to read (2.00 / 2)

Here are some rules for the critical media consumer:

don't take paraphrases at face value.

don't trust anonymous sources.

check the full context of a quote.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (2.00 / 1)

Most people I know who don't keep up with politics but gladly donated said they had no idea Hillary needed money.  All she had to do is ask.  If Clinton campaign expands this effort they can easily surpass Obama's internet efforts because I believe this is first time Hillary has done a major internet fund raising push.  Obama has been doing it for a while.

45000+ new donars in 24 hours on internet Wow!!


by Opandora on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:32 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

I agree. She needs to keep asking for money. Don't expect to just get it. Keep the e-mails going and the call for money.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M (none / 0)

It may well be that Hillary can continue to come close to matching Obama on fundraising, although that would be incredible given the strength he showed last month.  Still, maybe she'll match or even outraise him somehow going forward.  But one burst of great fundraising doesn't tell the whole story, and one extraordinary week by no means proves whether Hillary will match Obama going forward, fall behind 2 or 3 to 1, or beat him in fundraising.

If you want to read tea leaves, though, think of this.  Hillary's campaign pulled some creative maneuvers to set up this fundraising effort.  They made public that staffers were going without pay (when they had only "offered" to do so), disclosed the loan, etc.  All of this made the campaign seem to be on the verge of bankruptcy.
While Hillary's "the-campaign-is-bankrupt" ploy was in full progress, Obama outraised her day for day, hour for hour, and in total, just with a simple appeal to beat the $5 million that the Clintons had loaned.

Now, imagine this fundraising scenario:  Given how much he's raised and how fast, how much do you think Obama could generate in 24 hours, 3 days, or a week if his campaign played the "desperation/bankruptcy" card?  Given past history, I bet they could raise $15 million in 3 days under those circumstances.  That would be the true point of comparison with what Hillary's just done.  Fortunately for us Obama folks though, I expect we'll never have to test that theory.....

:-)


by Bluebeard on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST

Serious question (none / 0)

First, full discolsure:  I'm semi-undecided, but lean to Obama.  With that out of the way, I admit that I'm startled by the responses to this fundraising tactic here.  Honestly, this doesn't bring hardcore Clinton supporters up short?  When your candidate just out-and-out lies to get you to donate, your response is just kind of a laughing, "Oh, you got us on that one!"?  You don't feel jerked around, even a little bit?    

I think Hillary would make a fine president.  But this is the kind of thing that brings me up short about her qualities as a candidate.    Telling your donors you're out of money when you're doing fine?  I dunno.  If Obama pulls that, he's sure as hell not getting my cash.  And the folks chest-beating here had better watch out for a backlash from other donors.    


by sharks201 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:14:24 PM EST

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

Um, I don't see the lie.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

What lie?

The Clinton campaign never said people were currently going without pay.


by americanincanada on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Why split hairs like that.  It is way too reminiscent of "I never had sex with that woman."  What is really bothering me about this(and would bother me equally if Obama did it) is the defense of a sleazy political move by the candidate's supporters.  Why not just say, it was a poor decision to manipulate like this, I still like the candidate, but this was bad judgment.  

Look, Hillary has so many good things going for her, the need to go to sleaze happens in her campaign too often and unnecessarily.  I'm not sure why.


by mady on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THANK YOU (none / 0)

That is why I never trust HRC. Everything she says/does is with the understanding that it's presumptively OK so long as it is in her personal interest. There probably were people donating money they really couldn't afford to part with b/c they are so supportive of HRC. And now we hear that it was just a ruse.

Chalk it up to the usual Clintonian tricks.


by highgrade on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

All this concern trolling on behalf of Hillary's poor, manipulated supporters is such a joke.  No one has said "it was just a ruse."  No one has shown that they weren't strapped for cash before this $7 million influx came in.

If you let slip that you're out of money as a way to get money to come in, that doesn't change the fact that you were out of money.  I'd like you to find me one Clinton supporter who feels "manipulated" or "lied to" at this juncture.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

I hope you were not referring to my post as trolling.  Take a look at what I've posted before before you accuse, please.


by mady on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

I was responding to the post that I responded to.

In regards to your post, I do not think there was anything sleazy in the slightest, nor do I feel manipulated in the slightest.  The campaign let it be known they needed money, and I gave money.  Why would you possibly think that's something which needs to be "defended"?  What horrible, horrible lie do you think was told?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

The lie, the implication that people would be working without pay.  Actually what bothers me is not so much lying but a candidate's supporters rationalizing all over the map when a simple, yeah it was wrong, maybe it had to be done but it wasn't a good thing, would suffice and be a much more reasonable way to address this.


by mady on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

Obviously the offer to work without pay was unnecessary once $6 million in donations showed up.  I don't feel lied to in any way, shape, or form.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: THANK YOU (none / 0)

And I do, which I suppose is why we support different candidates.

Mady


by mady on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

I think this is how Clinton will be when the chips are down as president: pulling the ace of the hat right on time.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

If you leak that your staffers are going unpaid to NBC News, the Politico, and ABC news, you're lying.  When the nets say they've "confirmed" that someone is going without pay, that means it was confirmed from within the campaign.    

And if you don't see that as a lie--well, you just don't mind being lied to.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/02/clinton-senior.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037431/


by sharks201 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

Some people agreed to go without pay for February.

Now that $6 million came in, they don't have to go without pay.

It's not that complicated, nor is it a lie.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

It's a matter of honesty.  She's teared up twice on the campaign trail and the last 24 hours worth of "woe is me" looks fake.  We don't need another dishonest president - whether it's "I did not have sex with that woman" or "Iraq has WMD's"    


by ruskin on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

Hooray, another "Hillary pretended to cry" commenter.  You guys are priceless.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

who you calling a guy?


by ruskin on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 1)

Even 20 years ago when I was in high school, people accepted that "you guys" is a gender-neutral term.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be honest with yourself (none / 0)

Hillary never tears up in public ever, until the day before the two biggest elections of her life; and you see no coincidence there?

I also agree with other commentators that the big difference between Obama and Hillary in this little fund-raising spat is that Obama didn't have to manipulate anyone into thinking he was broke to get cash.  He just asked for it with everyone KNOWING that he was already ahead on money.  And he got it.  

It's illustrative of the difference between Obama and Hillary all around, really.  You guys have no problem with her manipulating you, the same way that you have no problem with her smearing Obama or lying about his statements or with Bill making racial comments.

I would be afraid of Obama if I were you too, so I understand why the reaction is so strong.  He's trying to get rid of YOUR mentality, not just win the presidency for the Dems.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be honest with yourself (2.00 / 2)

I'm not afraid of Obama, but I find you a little bit scary, to be honest.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be honest with yourself (none / 0)

You're going to have to do a lot better then cute one-liners to convince me of that.  


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Riiiiiiight. So all of a sudden, the candidate running on the platform of being strong enough to take the lumps and rise above is now the candidate who shows her feelings yet bravely fights on?

PLEASE. She's playing off a sexist stereotype, too. Imagine if Obama or Edwards had cried like she did. Would you be defending them?


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 2)

She didn't even cry, for God's sake.  No, of course I wouldn't be accusing any other candidate of "crying on purpose."  It's a symptom of how some people are willing to accuse Hillary of literally everything.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Right, she just choked up a little... at a televised campaign event.


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:46:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Believe me, I don't want you to stop thinking that Hillary cried on purpose.  In fact, I want you to keep saying it as loudly and as often as you can.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Fair enough. And you guys keep talking about what a shrewd manipulator she is.


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

I'm sorry, that was far too adversarial, and I'm being extremely rude. I apologize to you, and I'll back off.


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 2)

Imagine if Obama or Edwards had cried like she did. Would you be defending them?

Hell, yes.  This isn't 1972 or 1984.  People can show they are human in public without being considered weak.  Clinton and Bush have both teared up in public, and no one thought ill of them for it.


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

But in response to feeling like you might lose? I know that all men and women cry, but I can't feel sorry for that. Maybe if she hadn't been planning her move for 7 years, I'd have more sympathy.

And even if the first one WAS genuinely choking up, the second one was political. If only because she saw a bump and figured it'd be worth another shot to let herself go. Again, playing directly to people's instincts about gender roles. How far back do you think it'll take feminism if the first female president cries whenever she doesn't get her way?


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

I didn't read it as crying because she might lose. She teared up a little, because she really cares.

And I don't see anything nefarious in the fact that she got a little emotional right before the election...twice.  The closer to the election, the more frantic the pace.  She was probably exhausted.    People are more vulnerable when they're exhausted.


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

When Barack Obama said in the debate that he did not have a lobbyist working for his campaign, was that a lie? Perhaps you could explain how your high standards of truth and moral outrage work.


Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.
by Denny Crane on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (2.00 / 0)

I wouldn't call it a lie, just a really brilliant display of politicking.  I for one applaud.  They did an amazing job of playing the MSM for suckers and right into their hands.  And you know what, more power to them.  They got to play the punching bag for years and now they get to turn the whole thing around.

This was a very smart, calculated move based solely on knowing the way the media works inside and out.  I think the only thing that probably didn't go as planned was the Obama check-raise on the fundraising side.  But good for both of them, you will never see McCain raise anywhere near that much in an entire week.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Serious question (none / 0)

Candidates don't write a $5 million check to their campaign for shits and giggles.

Hillary needed to increase her grassroots fundraising fast. She communicated the need (using the pack of media hyenas hatred for her, knowing they would shout a negative story far and wide). Clinton's very committed supporters responded.

I got an e-mail from my college daughter last night: "Dad, Hillary's in trouble. She needs our help. I just donated. Have you?"


by hwc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And your point is? (none / 0)

Nope...you will just have to worry about losing the nomination outright.

What is the point of this "mine is bigger than yours" argument? To prove that you are all twelve years old and fighting an icky girl on the playground? To pove you mostly think of this as some silly student council election that means nothing?

Contrary to what the "kids" may think...this is not a game. It is not a contest to see who can do it faster or to raise money just to show a tit-for-tat mentality.

The is a campaign and the most important election in possibly our nation's history. Too bad most of the "bots" can't see that and take it for the serious business it is.


by americanincanada on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST

Ombama counter GONE (none / 0)

Yesterday they had a counter on how much they were raising. Today when HRC caught up perhaps passed them on internet donation they took it down!


by bayareasg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST

Re: Ombama counter GONE (none / 0)

Or it was a 24 hour fundraising effort and the 24 hours is up.  Now you are just sounding like a Rontard.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Something else about that AP article: it mentions in the lead paragraph that Obama is avoiding debates.


by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:31:31 PM EST

getting pimped? (none / 0)

David Shuster just tried to claim that the Clintons were "pimping" out Chelsea. Wow. I mean, WOW.

I think this whole MSNBC/Clinton thing is about to come to a head.


by chopsui on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:32:54 PM EST

Re: getting pimped? (none / 0)

Oh man.  You do NOT mess with Chelsea.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or what? (none / 0)

Jeez, you guys are too much, really.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or what? (none / 0)

I already sent a complaint email to MSNBC.  They want to sound like Don Imus, they're going to hear from people.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: getting pimped? (none / 0)

The media started doing hit pieces on Chelsea late last week. I think the NY Times was first, attacking her because she wouldn't hold press conferences on the press plane.

I figured that the pack of hyenas would follow with fangs bared in short order.

"Pimping". More visciously sexist language from the ol' boys club.


by hwc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

getting pimped? (none / 0)

David Shuster just tried to claim that the Clintons were "pimping" out Chelsea. Wow. I mean, WOW.

I think this whole MSNBC/Clinton thing is about to come to a head.


by chopsui on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:33:12 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

More parsing by Hillary -  Didn't say they weren't getting paid -  they only "offered" to not get paid. Nevermind that the result was the same either way - people manipulated into thinking the Clintons really needed money bad. Get used to it Clintonites - you want 8 years of that kind of parsing???


by CB Todd on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Yes.  I much prefer it to the Bush administration's tin ear.  Hopefully, they'll do enough parsing to avoid coming up with embarrasments like Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom, Homeland Security, and "crusades" against terrorism.


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't trust the media (2.00 / 2)

I know this is hard for Obama supporters to grasp, but the media is not your friend. You can't take what they say at face value. Anyone who listened to what Senator Clinton said, rather than what some idiot reporter heard from an anonymous source, understood that she was playing the media. As with Novak's "let's you and him fight" a few months ago you guys always fall for media tricks, Clinton supporters don't.

That is why we think Obama would have a harder time in the general, he has not shown any ability to handle an adverse press environment, and his supporters appear to believe whatever the TV says.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

So - the media comes out with story after story about how HRC's campaign is running out of cash, Obama is out-fundraising her 2 or 3 to 1, her staff is going unpaid, etc.  You acknowledge that this may have been false information.

The next day, HRC supporters raise $5 million, an unprecedented one day boost for her campaign.  

So how can you claim that it's OBAMA supporters who are "believing whatever the TV says?"

Seems to me that it's the HRC supporters who "fell for it".


by goodnbad on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

Hillary and her campaign made it publicly clear that they were behind Obama in the money race, and asked for help. Clinton supporters stepped up, Obama and the media went into hysterics.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First, you're chiding Obama supporters for "falling for" the "HRC is strapped for cash" media story and implying that they are naive for trusting the media.

After I point out that the result of that media story was a donations boom by HRC supporters - and therefore pointing out that HRC supporters "fell for" the media story too, you now say that HRC meant it all along, and therefore the media had it RIGHT?

Which is it?


by goodnbad on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

Ain't I just like a Democrat? All nuancy? 'Fraid I can't translate it into straight talk for you, try reading it again, maybe it will come to you. Careful with your subjects and objects, though, you seem to confused them.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

Frankly, no, there is no nuance.

Fact:  
Media reports on a story concerning how some within the campaign are working for free.

Your opinion:
BHO supporters who believed the story are rubes who believe whatever the TV says.
HRC supporters who believed the story and start donating are - are...what, exactly?  Media savvy?

Finally, your quote:  
"Anyone who listened to what Senator Clinton said, rather than what some idiot reporter heard from an anonymous source, understood that she was playing the media."

Playing the media to what end?  If your answer is "to generate campaign money"  then all I have to say is - "Who really got played?"


by goodnbad on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't trust the media (none / 0)

She used the media to get her message out, as she always does. Her supporters got the message and donated money.

Now, the media, typically, tried to spin the story as "Clinton out of money, staff skipping salaries, how can she compete?" The Obama camp bought the campaign in trouble spin and started speculating about how long she could stay in ("bury her"). Clinton supporters responded the way they responded in NH, NV, CA, NJ, MA, by showing the media and Obama exactly how she competes.


by souvarine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Or maybe Drudge and the sheep MSM that followed his headline from yesterday just...oh I don't know....GOT IT WRONG.


by chopsui on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

The Clintons knew they would play it that way and I think that is the point. It shows experience and wisdom. If the media wants to run with the "Clinton is broke" meme then that is not to be blaimed on the campaign. This show os understanding ofo the media is a good contrast to Obama's over creation of expectations. To be balanced though Barack is also working the media fairly well (Considering heis getting all of the good press)


Voices in the Wilderness
by Wiseprince on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Yeah. Experience and wisdom in doing exactly the kind of spin and manipulation that the country has lived with for eight years. I don't want my leaders doing that anymore. She's running a dirty campaign, and I hate that more than I can express in text.


by vcalzone on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

To win the game you've got to play the game. This is why it MAY prove difficult to change the system without knowing the system. Who kknows. Personally I don't think anything will change no matter who's elected.


Voices in the Wilderness
by Wiseprince on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Agreed. Change is incremental.  It's the nature of our political system.  We don't have a parliamentary system like many European countries do, that can turn on a dime.  We're built for stability, not speed.

I'm also a little uneasy about what will happen when that becomes obvious to everyone.  That's the problem with a cult of personality.  If the idol turns out to have feet of clay - or be no different from any other politician - what happens to his support?  


by randym77 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Obama camp has been brilliant on several fronts but they have played the expectation game poorly.  They have been almost arrogant on this fundraising front.  Now that Obama has raised so much money if he has a poor week or month it will not look good.  

Also the expectations that Obama will do very well in the races in Feb.  Imagine he doesn't do well and loses few and wins by small margins in many think how that will play out.


by Opandora on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Obama took the counter down - because the point has been made repeatedly and currently - We can match you and raise you dollar for dollar. But this is not ALL about money so let's not get into a side show.
Same with debates. We've had 18 debates. There will be another before 3/4  - this is positioning and trying to get the newcycle off how wonderfully Obama did on Super Tuesday and will do over the next three weeks.

He will not win them all, but he will win many and more than she will. The stage is set for Ohio and Texas. If he doesn't win one of those - he may keep up in the delegate count - it will look like he can't win any of the really big states. If he does win one - I think she's done.


by CB Todd on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:40:33 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

Opandora - Hillary is viable now and she will remain viable until OHIO and Texas no matter how well she does or how poorly. They are her firewall. And Obama can only beat her there by organizing the GOTV there, advertising there and campaigning there.

I don't think what happens between now and then will have much affect except is he loses a majority of the primaries. People see them as even now - provided they are roughly even going in nothing changes that perception except what he does on the ground there.


by CB Todd on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

This seems about right... If Obama loses a bunch of primaries he's favored in, or Hillary loses OH or TX, those would be major blows to their respective campaigns.  Assuming Obama does well in MOST of the February events, the winning OH or TX would be a bigger blow to Hillary than Obama losing a smaller Feb state.


by leshrac55 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (none / 0)

Obama could easily win 8/9 or even all 9 of the primaries that are coming up in February.  You think it won't matter that Clinton would have been a month without a win if that happened?  Or that Obama now would have won 24 or 25 states out of 50 by that point?

If you believe that, Rudy Giuliani has a bridge he's interested in selling ya :)


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

Who has more votes so far? Hillary or Obama? I think it is Hillary.


by thetis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

Obama does, actually.

See, FL and MI don't count - Dem's de rules this year.


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

No, currently the votes don't give any delegates.  But the voters who cast those votes are real.   It takes a case of severe retrocranial inversion to think otherwise.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

Actually, five of the contests are caucuses.  Obama's ground game should be favored in them.  

But to your central point, if you think people in Ohio and Texas are going go gasp and think Obama is an inexorable inevitability and roll over, think again.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

You should contact Giuliani about that bridge too, man.

Of course, Obama isn't just going to be sitting on his thumbs the whole time.  He has had precinct offices in TX and OH for some time and just opened up a few new ones.  He has structural advantages in TX as well (1/3 of the votes are caucus votes!) and will have a lot of momentum and money going into the race.

Don't count your chickens in TX yet...


by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

If you think Clinton is comparable to Giuliani at this point, from a strategic standpoint, you're nuts.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

If you think that losing 7 or 8 out of the next nine states isn't going to drop your numbers, then yes, you are going with the Giuliani plan.  Not a smart move.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

Except that this isn't the beginning of the campaign, Hillary has her own legions of enthusiastic supporters (contrary to the wishful thinking of some Obama supporters), is more than half way to securing the nomination, and has an impressive string of victories in states like California, Massachusetts, Florida (yeah, the votes count even if the delegates currently don't), New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan...other than that, your analogy is perfect.  


by InigoMontoya on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $7.2M, Clinton Raises $6.4M Since (none / 0)

The more important numbers are the following poll numbers:

Time:
Clinton - 46%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 48%
McCain - 41%

Rasmussen:
Clinton - 44%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 43%

Hopefully soon enough voters in the Democratic party realize they don't have to vote for Hillary to win the White House, in fact, that'll hurt the party's chances.

If only early voting weren't allowed on Super Tuesday.  Obama would have likely done better in California and other states.


by RussTC3 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:27 PM EST

Hillary Did Well in CA with Non-Write-Ins (2.00 / 1)

Your theory about mail-in votes does not hold up.

There were reports of upwards of 12-18% undecideds in CA right before the election. She and Obama split the ones deciding within 3 days leading up to the election. She won by 5% the ones deciding the last day.

He just lost CA, period.