It matters for other reasons.  She has a staff to pay, travel expenses, etc.

Money does, after all, make the world go around ;)

She doesn't have a 20 point lead in PA; she has a 16 point lead. (The fact that that's going to shrink by 5-10 points, I'll leave alone for now.) The fact is that 16 points in PA isn't enough; it isn't nearly enough.

For Hillary to become a viable candidate, which she isn't now, she needs to a) win EACH AND EVERY REMAINING PRIMARY by a minimum of 20 points and b) put a cork in Bill, Mark Penn, and James Carville.

Crazy analogy.

Why do you think the other democratic candidates got out?  LACK OF FUNDS to fight it through.  Even Mitt Romney, looked at his constant check to campaign and said enough is enough.

I'm sorry, I made a typo there.  That should read over $6 million in two DAYS after her TX and OH wins.  So, I'm confident you'll find that they are not in financial trouble at the moment.

Obama's campaign still outspends her about 2-to-1 on marketing, but she has managed to double her lead in PA and completely erase his lead in NC.  So I think they are doing ok.

As of 9:07 AM March 22, Obama has received 962,000 individual donations in March. That is an average of 43,727 donations per day (I'm astounded at the rate of growth in per day donations. Yesterday it was just over 42,000).

In February, his average donation was $75. If he has maintained that, his per day haul is $3,279,525. If it dropped to $50, his per day haul is $2,186,850.

What I find embarassing is Obama's close association with Wright.  

If the supers were so convinced of Obama's ability to win in the general election, they would have already jumped to his side.

To me it seems like the end of a basketball game when a team is trailing by like 8 points.  There is about a minute left and they start fouling.  They are stopping the clock, but they keep giving the other team points.  In the end, they often end up losing by more than if they had just played it out the normal way.

It seems to me Hillary keeps fouling, the GOP keeps gaining points, and the Clinton legacy loses a little more by the week.

How about recognizing that Obama has failed to reach a decisive majority by April? It's not like it was a big surprise that it would come down to Obama v. Clinton; that's been the conventional wisdom for at least a year, ever since his stunning performance in the first round of the "money primary" in 2007. Why is someone who proclaimed to be the overwhelming favorite having such a hard time wrapping things up? I would have been ready to support him last month if he could have just won at least one decent-sized state on March 4--which is to say, won more votes in the primary than Clinton. What is so hard about that? The "3AM" ad should have turned people off--at the very least it was ripe for satire (does Hillary really wear a business suit at 3AM?)--yet all we got from the Obama camp was whining about Clinton playing the "fear" card. Did Obama take out ads saying "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"? Apparently, his whole answer was to go on about his 2002 speech again.

I'll support Obama if he is the nominee, but it would be nice to hear why traditional Democrats (besides African Americans) should support him, rather than the "inevitability" argument. And the "unique opportunity" and "once in a lifetime" stuff doesn't cut it.

Finally, I would note that "stick a fork in _" is very, very unhelpful. Here's an idea--let's see how the last round of primaries goes. These states hardly ever get to matter--how about Obama gets out there and wins instead of just writing off the ones that don't fit his demographic profile? That is the way to end this.

As I understand it, the $11M is from the same folks who maxed out for the primaries.  Anything over the max/individual has to be held for the GE.

They have no choice, it's about maxed-out donors.

Last time I checked, 1,622 is not greater than or equal to 2,024.

...just not answers for her own money problems...

Obama can't beat Clinton among the voters? I know 704,000 people who beg to differ.

At this point, she got about 225,000 more votes than he did in March, but we probably have to wait until Mar 29 to find out how the 1 million Texas caucus voters voted. I suspect her lead will drop for March.

As for being dramatically outspent, so far this year Clinton has spent an average of $9.60 per vote while Obama has spent an average of $10.80 per vote. This doesn't seem that dramatic to me. Perhaps in MARCH alone the difference was greater, but that level of precision is virtually impossible to detect by looking at FEC filings, plus then you'd have to know how any early Texas votes were in February, etc.

anyone know what mccain eats?  that man is almost 72, and has priobably been aged to about 110, between being tortured and his years as a senator, a job that has been shown to age a person.  does his diet keep him (sort of) youthful?  his genes, or some other secret?

The Obama campaign had $31 million in the bank going into the month.

You want a convention floor fight...is that your idea of a successful endgame for either candidate?  

No matter what the polls say in Missouri or PA or elsewhere, the delegate math keeps moving in Obama's direction.  If you get your miracle and the delegates pivot to Clinton, she loses much of the black vote in a spasm of bitterness.  Right or wrong, that will happen.  

On Wright, but he's bouncing back and will be stronger than ever.  Senator Obama is like the Energizer Bunny - just keeps on coming.

to win over votes. Insulting fellow Democrats. Great strategy.

1. I find it pathetic that people are arguing that only big states matter here on MyDD. One of the homes of the 50 State Strategy. I don't want to keep playing with the same old map again and again because it won't build a long term progressive majority.  

We have a real opportunity to fundamentally change the map in this election. He trended down in one state. Big deal. He was down by a lot more then that when we started the primary campaign and he ended up winning.

2. I think it is pretty insulting that you imply that Obama suporters don't care about winning in November and that you automatically assume hatred of the Clinton's.

First of all I (A Obama cultist) care deeply about winning in November. Because as a kid that is going to effect my future very much. I would rather not see a hard right supreme court for the rest of my life overturning any attempt at progress. We need to tackle the climate crises or there will be no planet to live on. We need to make collage affordable or my generation will not be able to go to collage.

Second of all I do not bear any personal hate of the Clinton's. I think that they have a bad political strategy though and took the Democratic Party in the wrong direction. I simply don't think the DLC/Penn formula is the right one for winning or governing. And it is because I believe that we should win that I have made a different choice. I don't bear hatred against fellow humans.

3. This diary is about how the Clinton campaign is in debt. It's hard to see how that means her campaign is doing good. You can't run a campaign with no money.

4. Richardson is not at all part of this diary. But maybe he honestly liked both canidates like many Democrats and wanted to take his time in deciding? Just a guess?

probably more so than any remaining Primary contest. The uncommitted SD's are going to be looking closely at the money war. The ones who are elected officials are going to want a piece of the Obama money tidal wave, and the DNC members are going to be dreaming of well funded down ticket races. Already the report today showing the HRC campaign in the red is going to damage her chances with the remaining uncommitted SD's.

I don't think Obama is going to hit the $100 million mark for March. That is just crazy money. He'll probably be in the 65-70 million range.

I think ethically the super delegates should have no influence except at the end of the nomination process when ALL states have voted. It is their job in a close decision to decide who would best win the general election if neither gets the 2025 needed and neither candidate will.

IMHO as screwed up and undemocratic as our democratic nomination and national electorial election is I am happy to see, that ALL states matter in the nomination process (MI & FL delegates will HAVE to be counted in some fashion and not 50/50 prior to the convention in a REAL democratic selection process). This hasn't happened in many years and another part that is democratically screwed up is that number of pledged delegates are based on the LAST election turnout and not the current election turnout.

I'm sick of hearing the contest should end and be decided NOW when neither of the candidates will have enough pledged delegates and race is so close and maybe dividing the party in the short term giving more hope to more people that their votes actually do count in a primary nominee. It's also the first election I've seen where money doesn't matter and the influence peddling of the past might not be so dominate in future elections. This proves out with McCain and Huckabee who lasted longer in the GOP than Romney and Guliani who were outspending both. It also shows that since Obama is outspending Hillary nearly 2-1 sometime 3-1 in the contests that maybe votes really aren't for sale. (one can hope)

Sorry this is long- but I also think that the longer the 'battle' between Hillary and Obama goes on the less problems of unifying the party with the eventual outcome and it also gives the Republican attack machine an unclear target whether to go after both or wait for a shorter period in which less damage can be done. It's nice to say we democrats need to gear up....but I've never seen it the case that we become rapid attack dogs that destroy the 'other' candidate, but think talking about the issues and getting the message out is what it takes to win an election. Not so...but the longer Obama and Hillary talk the issues and differences between them and the differences between them and McCain. I think it's better for the party and the country to let this play out until the last state votes in June and some fair decision for MI and FL are worked out BEFORE the Aug convention. And super delegates should have pledged to nobody before then.  Those were the 'rules' of the DNC and should remain the 'rules' of the DNC- as screwed up as it might be in disenfranching most of the party in the past nominating process.

Again- over talked my point that money isn't the big issue in the 2008 election- which is a good thing for a CHANGE.

HRC picked up at least three new supers this week including Jack Murtha, all of which got very little media coverage.

Expectations are already factored in - it won't make any difference.

Individuals are allowed to only give $2300 for the primary.  They can give another $2300 for the general, but the candidate can't spend it for the primary.  Hillary just has a lot of donors that have maxed out.

That extra money she has is locked up.  My understanding is that she has to give it back if she's not the nominee.

Individuals are allowed to only give $2300 for the primary.  They can give another $2300 for the general, but the candidate can't spend it for the primary.  Hillary just has a lot of donors that have maxed out.

That extra money she has is locked up.  My understanding is that she has to give it back if she's not the nominee.

I think you mean 1999, and if so, you're right.

And the sad thing about this is, we have absolutely no evidence that Hillary and Bill have done anything wrong or unethical, financially speaking. There's some pretty questionable stuff there, but... Bill makes good money speaking. Millions? Seems unlikely. But good money.

But... we have absolutely no evidence that there's nothing wrong, either. And that's entirely due to a lack of tax returns, something we could've had virtually any day since early February. This just doesn't need to take very long! There are probably hundreds of accountants who could get the returns out in a week or two, properly redacted (since you can't very well redact sources of income or nature of investments, otherwise it looks even worse).

The Clintons could be -- and quite possibly are -- entirely aboveboard here. But it's their own fault that no one can say that they are and people are going to rumormonger about this. And they know that, and still don't put out the returns, which looks still more suspicious.

And before anyone brings up the inevitable counterarguments: Obama's tax returns are out there and he's not running on his own money anyway, whether or not he dragged his feet on Rezko is now irrelevant, as he's now considered a model for transparency and honestly vis-a-vis Rezko, and there are no archives of state senators' records. But everyone's got tax returns, and the Clinton's sources of income are a matter of distinct income, due if nothing else to the $5M campaign loan.

oops, it's meant to be address to Jonathan Singer,
not Jerome Armstrong.

good nite
;o)

...when people ask about what's so different between Clinton and Obama, where's all this change, why is she considered the conventional candidate and he's the outsider, etc.  It's how they run their campaign.  This notion of raising staggering amounts of money to blow on salaries for ineffective consultants, Schrums and Frums and Froms et al, and at the end of the day everyone gets paid but the dems lose.  

Now I'm sure Clinton can beat McCain if she makes it some(!)how to the GE; and I'm sure Obama is paying too much for his media consultants considering all the tv advertising he's been doing (has he been spending it wisely in cable buys or just blowing it on the networks?); but there's a fundamental structural difference between how these campaigns function, and the results of this last year to me make the argument about what's wrong with business as usual.

Absolutely, yes. This is way too important an election.

You jut paid for about ten minutes of Howard Wolfson's time.

I know what Wolfson has done for Hillary: it ain't worth $2500 an hour.  Unless he is sleeping with Elliott Spitzer. In which case you shouldn't be paid for it.

On the Judas' of the party? :)

I'm not so sure people would be flocking to Obama if he loses 7 of 10 primaries even if only by 1 vote. If you think the over 13 million people voters who voted for Clinton will not see that as a coup then  maybe you don't fully realize why the party is in a box right now

Obama won more delegates in TX.  Obama won TX.  Scoff all you want, but only the delegates matter.

> Hillaryland and enter Realityland

You know what made the healing possible at Appomattox? The victor, Grant, did not try to make the vanquished, Lee, eat mile after mile of shit. He offered favorable terms - more favorable than Lee expected to get. Then the CSA troops arrived to stack their arms and surrender, General Chamberlain's Union troops snapped to attention and saluted.

Compare that, please, to the way Obama backers are trying to reunify with the Clinton backers. Insults, name calling, race baiting, and recriminations are the order of the day in "Obamaland", it seems.

I urge you to try a different approach, if you want to heal the wounds. Try a little respect.

What's clear is that little of that money came from small donors.

Why do I say that?  Because $20 was for the general election. No small donor is going to give for the GE right now. The only folks who do that now are people who already maxed out at $2300 per person.

It's a bit premature for gloom.  Once the nomination gets decided, all progressive firepower will be trained on McCain.  The Iraq War and economic collapse aren't going anywhere, and can't be hidden from.  The mood of the country is much different than in 2004.  Right now, McCain is getting a free ride as Obama and Clinton continue to slug it out.  However, that won't always be the case.  I'm of the opinion that Clinton should get out sooner rather than later since she has almost no chance of winning of that thing, but that's a minority opinion around here.  However, McCain is still an incredibly bad candidate.  Once the focus is firmly on McCain, and on his disastrous policies and lack of economic knowledge, he'll come back down to earth.  This is as high as his approval is likely to get.

That would be my first guess.

> It is time to shut this thing down.

Why do you hate democracy?