Marc Ambinder (February 09, 2008) - Clinton Finds A Donor Base

I don't find it surprising that she would generate enthusiasm. I find it weird those people came out of the woodwork suddenly on Feb 5th (especially since they were reports of money trouble after the much more damaging Iowa loss).
If they were so many people eager to give so much money, what kind of idiotic fundraising operation does she have that they hadn't plugged into it earlier ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:09 PM

She has a strong well-spring of support among women. I know that is true within my own family, for sure. And she's called for help. I think this will keep them even for the rest of the nominating cycle as small donors start giving her every month as a lot of Obama supporters have started doing.

Posted by Rhoda | February 9, 2008 9:09 PM

Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers.

A lot of her supporters figured she would win easily, and early on didn't really need the money. Obviously it's possible she'll lose, -- and this is clear to everybody -- and her supporters have finally had a big ol' fire lit under their arses.

There's nothing really surprising in this. I just sent her money myself, hope to add more in the coming weeks, and urge all Clinton supporters to do so as well.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 9:14 PM

Considering their complaints that Obama outspent them in these states today, you'd think they would have put some of this money to work so that they didn't get smoked today.

Posted by Dan Pf. in Chicago | February 9, 2008 9:15 PM

Obama is winning big in WA and NE. If he wins LA, then wins with huge margins in MD, VA, and DC, then it may be a matter of too little too late. She could raise $50 million in February and fail to stem the momentum. Remember that Obama raised almost $8 million in 36 hours. I don't know the Clinton camp expects to spin this to their favor.

Posted by Craig | February 9, 2008 9:18 PM

"I don't know the Clinton camp expects to spin this to their favor."

They actually succeeded at spinning her winning MA as a "huge upset". Trust me, they will spin. Chutzpah is not what they lack.

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:22 PM

LOL. You must be kidding me, Marc. Shock that Hillary Clinton has "found" a donor base and is raking in the cash? Give me a break! The shocking numbers were revealed over the past few weeks when it started to look like she was in financial trouble. That was the information which baffled everyone.

Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by LOL | February 9, 2008 9:23 PM

How much of this is for the general election? If they hit up the donors who are maxed out for the primary but not the general, they could do this without too much difficulty. If they don't win the primary, the money goes right back to the donors.

Posted by ben | February 9, 2008 9:26 PM

I have not seen anything from the Clinton camp that specifies how much of this money is available for the primary and how much just for the general election. They've been spinning this as if it were all just primary money, but I would think someone interested in actually reporting the news (as opposed to transcribing it) might ask them the question.

Posted by Fred App | February 9, 2008 9:27 PM

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists.

Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

Uh, what's with the weird crack at a straw man Obama supporter? Got anyone for the record?

Given the virulence of the primary campaign at the moment, it's not at all surprising Clinton is raising money now. What's surprising is that it took her team so long to figure out how to use the Internets.

Posted by Kevin | February 9, 2008 9:34 PM

Geez Marc, you have some real pro-Clinton bitterness showing here. Leave the nasty stuff to the commenters. (Though hopefully not there either)

Posted by Chris O. | February 9, 2008 9:36 PM

I am not surprised about her finances. Given that as many people voted for her as Obama on Tuesday (popular vote wise), why shouldn't she be able to receive just as much online money?

Money is overrated anyways (unless you're broke). Look at Romney and Huckabee runs.

Posted by TonyMak | February 9, 2008 9:37 PM

Benjamin - exactly. It's not surprising she is getting a lot of low-dollar donors. What's surprising is that the Clinton team didn't spend time trying to bring these people along before. Perhaps they thought it would hit her "invincibility" argument early on. Either way, another bad call by the campaign.

Posted by evie | February 9, 2008 9:39 PM

I won't be surprised if Hillay has raised that much money. It has finally dawned on her idiotic fund raisers that instead of going to wealthy donors again and again (who are probably maxed out) go to the internet, just as Obama has raised has done so successfully. Hillary's fundraiser-in-chief should be fired for embarrassing her in having to admit that she came up with $5m from her pocket. That sent a terrible message that people are willing to give her money!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 9, 2008 9:42 PM

I won't be surprised if Hillay has raised that much money. It has finally dawned on her idiotic fund raisers that instead of going to wealthy donors again and again (who are probably maxed out) go to the internet, just as Obama has raised has done so successfully. Hillary's fundraiser-in-chief should be fired for embarrassing her in having to admit that she came up with $5m from her pocket. That sent a terrible message that people are willing to give her money!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 9, 2008 9:42 PM

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh urging his 12 million listeners to "keep her in it so we can win it" had nothing to do with a massive surge in fundraising from new donors...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020708/content/01125114.guest.html

Posted by pw | February 9, 2008 9:44 PM

Again--an accomplishment being minimized. Break this down people--- have some business sense about you. Oh, I forgot I am probably commenting to the Obama Pep Rally force--aka the "crock-us" goers.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 9:47 PM

So apparently Marc is now in the business of making straw man arguments on behalf of unnamed "Obama allies".

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 9:48 PM

Yes, it's quite suspicious but not really surprising. The Billary Machine has done it before, as when the male part of this duo wrongly slammed Obama about the Bush war. It's their desperate attempt to get back to the White House, no matter how they do it.

Posted by Henry G. Schwarz | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM

Wow, the Clinton campaign must have gotten to Marc.

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate some of the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

What is this nonsense? Your posts were never like this in the past.

Marc, how much did Hillary pay you? What did she promise?

Posted by amy | February 9, 2008 9:50 PM

Given that as many people voted for her as Obama on Tuesday (popular vote wise)...

Correction: more people voted for Hillary than Obama on Tuesday.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh urging his 12 million listeners to "keep her in it so we can win it" had nothing to do with a massive surge in fundraising from new donors...

Oh. I so hope you're right. I had wondered if GOP "dirty tricks" might play into things. I'm hoping some Republican voters show up to vote for Hillary in primaries, too. I'm quite confident they'll be bitterly disappointed that they helped nominate a candidate who crushed them in November, but I'll take anything I can get.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 9:53 PM

Jasper ... the official count of the popular vote on Tuesday was 50.2% vs 49.8% excluding the Edwards etc people and that didn't count Alaska (which only reported delegates) and New Mexico.

By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM

By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

What part of "Hillary Clinton won 50,000 more votes than Barack Obama" don't you understand?

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc...

Ahhh, yes. The wonderful grace and magnanimity of the Obamabots.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 10:06 PM

And the Clinton campaign is now hoping this means that the HRC bank is closed for business.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 9, 2008 10:10 PM

CNN just called LA for Obama!

With 32% reporting, it's 53% to 39%.

Obama is 3:0 tonight...

Obama 08

Posted by sue | February 9, 2008 10:11 PM

kelley --- your comment are so, so, so funny!
I personally think the "$5MILLION" loan was another ploy, but I agree that the Clinton donors were probably waiting until Super Tuesday passed. I think that Ambinder's point are not skewed either way, actually - we Obamamamas have been proud as peacocks that our leettle $10 & $100 supporters have keep our Man in the lead financially, and I am hoping that continues to be the case. This is an entirely new kind of "public financing" of campaigns (unlike Edwards' campaign, which relied largely on public tax dollar financing). Why did we think that HRC's folks would not try to get into the same game?? I do find it suspicious that - if most donors were maxed out at $2300 (whatever it is) that she has suddenly amasssed all these NEW DONORS. ALthough many in the electorate support her - other than her historical fans - the newbies would be likely low-income & lower educated females/males & Hispanics/Latinos. In my anacdotal campaign experience this year, these are Hillary's largest supporters nationally. I find it suspicious that they would come up with $10 Million in a week. So, I do suspect some sort of manipulation, but much like the future trading HRC did in the 1990's (parlaying $1000 into $100,000 in less than a year) and many other Clinton fundraising shenanigans (Hsui, anyone?) it is highly doubtful that we'll ever know the entire truth.

Posted by Jean | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM

Jasper, get real.

"By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

What part of "Hillary Clinton won 50,000 more votes than Barack Obama" don't you understand?"

Ben's right. It IS as close in the real world to a tie as you can get. So what?

Posted by chum | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM

He is actually 4:0 tonight as the Virgin Islands overwhelmingly voted for him and he got their ... 3 delegates ! Yaya !

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:15 PM

It's very simple. Her supporters didn't really know she would need support since she had such a great start. When the news came out last week that she needed funds, they responded. Sometimes the media makes these things very complicated. But it's remarkably obvious.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:16 PM

Well I don't listen to Rush. So, I was not aware that he was asking for people to send her money. I know that I was very concerned when I heard that she had to lend her campaign money. I went to her website and gave. It was the first time I had been to her website. It was the first time I had ever given money to a candidate. I too assumed that she had plenty of money. If it was a ploy, it was a smart move because it worked. BTW, I am a black male. So, I don't fit the characterization of old angry feminists, etc.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 10:17 PM

Well, I must be an old, angry feminist. Although, I don't consider myself old. I'm not angry. And I've been liberated since I was a kid. But I made a contribution. Hillary is intensely smart and active. I would like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket, then we could get action and inspiration. The deal-breaker is to keep Bill out of the international mix and leave that to Barack. Then he can get more experience and move up the ladder, as many VPs do.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Oh, I should probably mention that I am a professional with an income well above the median for my metropolitan area. Most of my friends, those who are supporting Obama and those of us supporting Hillary are in the same well-educated, affluent demographic.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

Well, I must be an old, angry feminist. Although, I don't consider myself old. I'm not angry. And I've been liberated since I was a kid. But I made a contribution. Hillary is intensely smart and active. I would like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket, then we could get action and inspiration. The deal-breaker is to keep Bill out of the international mix and leave that to Barack. Then he can get more experience and move up the ladder, as many VPs do.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

I really think the net effect will be to inspire Obama donors. It has me.

Posted by Hermes | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

I'm a Clinton donor and while I can't speak for everyone I'll offer my reasons for giving to the campaign at this point in time:

1. I wasn't aware that she needed money. Now that I know, I'm more than willing to help.
2. I am responding to the hateful, Clinton-bashing tone of the Obama campaign (as witnessed by the vast majority of comments on this page) and the heavily biased media.
3. I am angry about what appears to be abuse, by the Obama campaign, of the caucus system. I find it suspicious that Obama has not done nearly as well in states holding standard, secret ballot primaries.

I am only one person, of course, and a sample of one does not make a statistic. But the question has been raised and this is one Clinton supporter's response.

Posted by Mark | February 9, 2008 10:28 PM

1. I wasn't aware that she needed money. Now that I know, I'm more than willing to help.

Fair enough. More power to you.

2. I am responding to the hateful, Clinton-bashing tone of the Obama campaign (as witnessed by the vast majority of comments on this page) and the heavily biased media.

Comments on blogs do not reflect on the actual campaign. I don't know where you got the idea that the Obama campaign has been particularly agressive coz that's not how I am seeing it. And to be fair Hillary commenters have not been particularly kind to Obama in return. So let's not pretend this is one-sided here.

3. I am angry about what appears to be abuse, by the Obama campaign, of the caucus system. I find it suspicious that Obama has not done nearly as well in states holding standard, secret ballot primaries.

Roll Eyes. Seriously ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:31 PM

Obama is a good, solid citizen and I wish him the best in politics. He has a bright future. But I did an analysis of his Senatorial performance, and he doesn't really work that hard. He speaks well, but he only voted 56% of all opportunities in his tenure thus far. Clinton voted 81% of the time. That's a sizable difference. I want a hard-working president for a change. I'd like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket. They will lose the Senate and Clinton is much more moderate. It's a good pair.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:33 PM

Difference is, Leigh, that he has been running for President for a large part of his tenure while Hillary Clinton has spent seven years in the Senate not running for anything.
Arguably, you can discuss the experience thing but the comparison is not comparable.
Give us numbers that compare 2004-2008 where they BOTH were in the Senate and we will go from there

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:40 PM

I'm not surprised by the huge amount she's raising from ordinary people. When her supporters found out she was in trouble, they came out to support her. Has anyone noticed that most of the states Obama is winning will vote Republican in November? How does that help Democrats? Hillary won all the major states, including Florida which is considered a swing state. She's the better choice for Democrats.

Posted by goldenstate | February 9, 2008 10:41 PM

Whooooohooooooooooooo Hillary rocks! She is getting more and more funds. She is going all the way and she will win.

If she don't win, look out the republicans will win.

Posted by Qster | February 9, 2008 10:44 PM

So, this "old feminist" (sorry, not "angry" -- weary and exasperated, but not angry) is a first time donor to HRC -- and this week. I've held off giving to anyone until I thoroughly reviewed issues and made a decision about who to support in the primary. I've done so, and am now solidly on board as a HRC supporter. My state has yet to hold its primary.

A general concern I do have is the level of venom in many of these posts and those I've read on other sites. I would certainly hope that all of us remember that only one of these two candidates will become the Democratic presidential candidate -- and either one would be far superior to any the Republicans have to offer. I would also hope that in this contest to win the nomination, we don't turn against each other to the point that we arm the Republicans for a win in November.

Despite our current differences or our energetic support for our individual candidate, we will need to come together in the general election if we want to see any kind of change in the White House come January. Despite the rhetoric, BOTH the Democratic candidates offer change and hope for the future.

Posted by rob m | February 9, 2008 10:46 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm going to sell items on ebay to send to her campaign. It's a struggle to buy necessities but I know it will be so worth it in the long run to have a compassionate, beautiful, holy woman in the White House.

Posted by realmendontvoteforhillary com | February 9, 2008 10:51 PM

Well since Clinton supporters are not highly affluent or college kids with wealthy parents paying the Visa bills maybe they had to save up before they could contribute. It is a more difficult choice to give when that money would otherwise go to put food on the table instead of a trip to Whistler or a new iPod.

Posted by ode to kelley | February 9, 2008 10:52 PM

Obama is dangerous. I have not seen this much propaganda in a long time. I wish America understood that the pep rallies he is winning are "crock-causes" and disenfranchise the majority of voters through time constraints, intimidation, public chastising and obnoxious, irreverent youth. It is all a strategic game with any politician and poker player. Just keep enough chips to be close when heads up and then pounce your opponent with an "All IN". This is going to be so fun when Hillary wins.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 10:54 PM

Clean sweep for oBama, I guess obamaites will want to say "Happy mini-super tuesday"

Posted by Dear-Marco-Polo | February 9, 2008 10:57 PM

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate some of the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

Which Obama allies are those? Names? Sources? As an Obama supporter, I hadn't thought, until the 5 million news came out, that Hillary couldn't hold her own on the financing front. Remember a few months ago Marc? She was "inevitable?" Part of that was all the money coming in. Moreover, as we know, there certainly are a lot of Hillary supporters out there. It is good for them that they have figured out how to tap into that.

Posted by David | February 9, 2008 10:58 PM

Obama and his supporters are bringing the country together.

Can you idiots hear yourselves? Obama supporters are the most hateful idiots I think I've ever heard from any candidate, ever. I'll vote for Obama now right after hell freezes over.

Posted by Anita | February 9, 2008 11:02 PM

This whole primary has been so painful to me. I am a longtime activist. I worked with the UFW in the 70s, Jesse Jackson in the 80s, antinuke movement, antiwar activities,etc. I thought I would stay out of this primary because I like everyone. I now support Hillary because I was a grownup watching her get annihilated by the press and still carrying on. I have seen Obama turn into your standard politican really quickly before my eyes. I don't feel he is a deeply unifying force like he claims to be. He could have won me over if I felt his generosity towards Clinton about what she has survived or talked up for Kucinich's inclusion in the debates. I am giving my support to Hillary because she does have more experience and I believe she cares. As a far as the older women thing, we have been fighting the good fight a long time and we have worked hard for mediocre candidates because the Republican platform and leadership are basically unacceptable. I would welcome a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Don't be slinging the mud, be the unifiers.

Posted by pattijo | February 9, 2008 11:09 PM

Jasper,

Would you like to run the voter tally again after tonight?

Posted by James in NJ | February 9, 2008 11:10 PM

Jasper,

Would you like to run the voter tally again after tonight?

On a different note, as an Obama supporter I am totally not surprised by Hillary's fundraising. It makes total sense. Nobody really knew she was having money problems (man these candidates are blowing through cash fast), and then she went public with the loan. If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd have given money too. And good for her. It's an impressive haul.

Posted by James in NJ | February 9, 2008 11:13 PM

From Progressive Democrats of America:

"No matter who we've supported so far for president, many PDAers have seen firsthand
the enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama.

The Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues, but our engagement with the inspiring Obama movement--which includes tens of thousands of open-minded newcomers to activism--leaves us hopeful. "

No, the Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues.

But why would one pay attention to silly retro things like issues, eh?

Why attend to issues when there's "New! new! youth! change! hope! change! shiny! shiny! new!" to be had.

We voting for Prom King?

I made up my mind when I saw the MTV debates and she knew every issue in and out and had a plan to deal with it. Not just platitudes.

I sent money to Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5. And I'll do it again.

She won convincingly in my very very liberal state, mostly by votes from the working-class poor. Not by votes from the wealthy, and even though she was opposed by Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:15 PM

"These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists." Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM

Well, you're quite the charmer, kelley. What's got your panties in a twist, eh?

Looking forward to more hope! change! hope!-meisters just like you.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:22 PM

"But unless the Clinton campaign is just flat out lying...something is going on here that we can't fully appreciate or understand just it."

Say, Marc, when you "appreciate" or "understand" what is going on let me know.

I think I know.

My guess is that HRC's appeals to women, which is divisive and exclusionary, works in raising money. But eventually women who support HRC solely because of her gender, will realize that they are being used by a politician for one base reason, to be elected president. It's about HRC, not us.

HRC's record is replete with pitting people and demographics against one another, and this instance is a clear example. Her past will be our future should she be elected: a divisive incrementalist, corporatist, and strong supporter of the military-industrial complex. That is her record if you take a close look.

Her campaign tactics from here on out will tell you what a Clinton3 administration. Look before you leap...

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
06/13/07
THE HILL

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), also a Democratic presidential candidate and Clinton’s rival for the nomination, has only one request in the defense bill.

Obama, who is not a member of the committee, made a request along with several other members for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities.

Posted by Marc B Adin | February 9, 2008 11:22 PM

I hope that the Dems don't self-destruct when we are so close. While I have never bought into the idea that the Republicans have been so weakened by this administration that the Dems can't possibly lose, it is clear to me that the time is finally ripe for Hillary to win. I have been watching Obama from the word go. I bought both of his books and went to see him in 2006 when he was down here campaigning for Ford, Jr. I, like a lot of people, instantly saw the potential for our first black president. It did not at the time occur to me that many within our party would so gleefully brush aside the first woman with anything like a serious shot at the White House to advance him to the head of the class. I have never felt what I believe is fear on the part of many that a woman cannot be elected president. I don't care if the right wing media call us girly men or manly women for nominating a woman. We are the party of real opportunity. When someone has tilled the soil as Hillary has done these many years, she can reap the benefits in our party. Fear and genuine admiration may indeed propel Barack to the nomination, but at what price? What message are really sending to our women, children (especially our daughters)and to to the Republican party? Ultimately, not a good one, no matter how we try to rationalize or spin it.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 11:27 PM

"women who support HRC solely because of her gender"

Nobody supports Hillary Clinton because of her gender, dude. Or dudette, as the case may be.

If that were so, we'd be equally happy to vote for Condi Rice, would we not?

Stupid.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:32 PM

I thank God that Hillary campaign is now raising a large amount of campaign funds, God is really blessing her now. I was one of the first donors who donated to her cause, when I found out that Hillary lending money to support her campaign I responded just like thousands of her other loyal followers did, I don't see nothing wrong with that. The Obama staff needs to stop worrying about how Hillary is getting a surge in campaign donations and concentrate on Obamas. I hope and Pray that people still donate to her cause in very large numbers, because sure I am. If any Hillary supporters are reading my post, Please continue to donate and Bless and show your love for Hillary, because it takes money to run and wage a competitive campaign against her opponent, not just talk, so lets put our money where our mouths is, lets fight back very very very hard with our massive donations and votes at the polls and Prayers to God to put her in the White House in 2009. Hillary has paid her dues to become the President of the United States of America

Please don't count Hillary out yet, because God works in so many mysterious ways, that man cannot understand, I'm sure Obama understands this, because he says he's a Christan, so he should know actually what I'm talking about, Obama should be very familiar with how God operates. God has men scratching their heads,and saying how can this be, Hillary never raised this much money this fast in such short time span in the past, there must be something crookit going on here,No People, I truly believe in my Heart, Soul and Spirit that's not happening in Hillary's Campaign, but I say never underestimate the power of God, and the awesome power he holds, I Pray a lot for Hillary and her campaign staff and so far, God is answering many prayers.

Go Hillary!!, and May God Bless Your Presidential Campaign Greatly, I'm Looking For A Miracle, and Expecting The Impossible.

Posted by Darrell | February 9, 2008 11:35 PM

Obama does not have broad appeal to voters. Either he can win the anti-democratic caucuses where only a few hardcore activists show up or win primaries in which the AA vote is high. He is yet to win a big state with a broad cross-section of voters outside of his home state. He lost New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, California, Michigan and Florida. He will lose Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

The only reason he is still in this race is because the nominating rules have been so rigged by Dean and Brazille to favor Obama. If Democrats used a winner-take-all system like Republicans, Obama will be behind by at least 400 delegates.

The Nebraska primary had 26,000 voters show up. 26,000 voters is nothing. Washington state has a primary on Feb 19. Yet, the state chooses to allocate delegates based on an anti-democratic caucus.

Obama simply cannot win big states. His coalition is just not broad enough for him to win him these states. If he is the nominee because of a rigged process, he will lose the entire south, entire mountain west and will lose all of the states in the industrial mid-west. He will be a huge disaster for our party and take with him our congressional candidates. We might very well lose the house with him.

Posted by SRK | February 9, 2008 11:40 PM

Call me suspicious, but Hillary failed to mention the "loan" to her campaign until after it was done and AFTER she had reported her January numbers, the "magic" $13.5 million. For a campaign -- who has Terry McAuliffe at its helm -- it strikes me as odd that all of a sudden Clinton is one day out of money and all of a sudden back in the chips. That one day her staffers are going without pay, and two days later have real checks and not the rubber, bouncing kind.

Call me cynical, but something is rotten in Denmark, and it ain't poor Yorick's brain.

Posted by jade7243 | February 9, 2008 11:52 PM

I am going to chime in here. Has anyone here recognized the laws that protect us from unlawful hiring practices? Namely, the EEOC. All candidates are being hired for the POTUS. At the primary level, the voters are the Interviewer of the interviewee (candidates). The sexism, disrespect, slander, biased media, filth slung toward a qualified applicant such as Senator Clinton is both appalling and ghastly. To negate her accomplishments on every level via media control and the internet should motivate everyone who believes in the rights of the EEOC to file a class action suit against the FCC, DNC and whoever governs these situations. Let me give you an example of one situation--apparently months ago The South Park show had a cartoon character of Hillary and placed a bomb up her vagina and blew her up. NOW I do not know about the readers of this blog but I consider that an act of violence, rape, and mindset of terrorism (hence the bomb). How about that South Park under the auspices of free speech and entertainment promoting those elements of indifference toward a Former First Lady and sitting Senator of the United States of America. When are people with a conscience going to realize that this alone denotes a 'hate crime'. As a Doctor, I am totally appalled at the abuse that Hillary is taking as a woman during this campaign and I invite both men and women that are not jaded by their life experiences to date to just go into their hearts and ask themselves, "Why are we treating a woman candidate this way, because I surely have not read or seen an Obama character with a bomb placed up the orifice of his penis for sake of entertainment? My final thought to intelligent voters is this, Vote for Hillary because she is qualified and Obama is not, it is just that simple.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 11:52 PM

Thank you for writing this article. Between the blogs and the press it seems that coverage on this campaign is seriously biased towards Obama. Obviously, Clinton has an amazing base. She was the parties first choice and has been an amazing democrat. Obamas campaign is a flash in the pan. We all want change. The question really is who can do it. She can.

Posted by sasha | February 9, 2008 11:55 PM

SRK: Care to explain how the rules were "rigged by Dean and Brazille to favor Obama?" As far as I know, the proportional system has been in place for decades. Also, it is up to states to choose whether they want to caucus or do a primary. Personally, I think a primary is probably the better route to go, but, it isn't up to me or Dean or Brazille to decide.

How could it be the case that Obama cannot win big states and yet still win the nomination? Could it be because he is cleaning up in smaller states and holding his own in big states (by a few percentage points)? I mean, you are sounding a little conspiratorial SRK. One might presume, with Hillary inheriting Bill Clinton's machine that she might have been able to stop the evil machinations against her. Or not?

Posted by david | February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

I donated money for Hillary...I think she's making history. Every political event that Mr. Obama attends is such a media savvy, scripted and orchestrated affair. His arrival, getting on the stage, greeting, the background faces, all of it with the help of camera work and lighting, done with perfect pitch and timing for the news cast footage, for the maximum effect-- like Hitler’s big frenzied rallies in Berlin─ using all the elements of the stagecraft. His image is so well manufactured for the consumption and the manipulation of the public, Mr. Obama’s politics looking more and more like a Hollywood production than a real life political event. While Mr. Obama’s message is about change, what Mr. Obama really does seemed to be steeped in corporate media that cheered us along in a very big way to the quagmire in Iraq. Mr. Obama also claims to be MLK and even JFK, without having done tiniest fraction of the vast accomplishments of MLK or JFK. Mr. Obama even lacks a sustentative legislative record. But for American media deeds have little value if you have the right image. I watch Mr. Obama’s rise in alarm for the sake of America’s future. His arrogance, his hubris is unsurpassed in American politics. I find him and his message without a clear political logic or details, more suited for TV audience, no discussion of issues, programs or policies, rather his speeches are full of name dropping and all sorts of claims, rich in platitudes and slogans. How come Mr. Obama’s embracing the Kennedy Camelot of the 60’s is considered going forward and if Hillary Clinton looks back to the 90’s for guidance─ now that’s considered going backwards?

Do your raalize that Mr. Obama was a heavy smoker untill recently, before he cleaned up his act,including destroing his appointment books as a state senator. He smoked hevily for years; and I think he carries a larger health risk than John McCain's age. Think about it...Remember Paul Thongus?

Posted by chandraperera | February 9, 2008 11:59 PM

Leigh
An Hillary/Obama ticket, you are dreaming.
Obama is a movement now and he is likely to be well ahead by Tuesday night. I don't even see an Obama/Clinton ticket as Obama can find somebody less controversial for a running mate, someone like Jim Webb perhaps!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 10, 2008 12:05 AM

josephine:

I agree with your outrage about the South Park incident, and we all know Chris Matthews has said some ridiculously sexist stuff abotu Hillary, but I find it curious that you spend 9/10s of your post talking about that and then at the end say that you should vote for Hillary because she is "qualified." And Obama is "not."

From the tone of your argument it seems more like you are saying, vote for Hillary, because there are sexist jerks out there. Now, I agree, there are sexist jerks out there, but that isn't a reason to vote for HIllary to my mind.

Moreover, is it really true that Obama is "not qualified" to be President? Now, if you were to say, hey, Hillary has more experience at national politics, or that you think she has better policies, or seems more competent, I wouldn't quibble, because those are reasonable statements to make. But do you really think Obama is "not qualified?" That's a pretty strong statement--and I wonder what you will do if he wins the nomination? I personally will support Hillary enthusiatically if she wins; will you support someone you don't think is qualified? Would you give the election to John McCain?

Posted by daivd | February 10, 2008 12:06 AM

David, I appreciate your response. You said, "From the tone of your argument it seems more like you are saying, vote for Hillary, because there are sexist jerks out there." No, that is not the reason to vote for her--she is qualified and that is the reason. The other 9/10ths of the post as you stated is for awareness purposes of the absolute evidence of insanity toward this woman and the lack of social consciousness involved. You asked, will I support someone else if she is not nominated. The answer is that I will stay home. I do not vote for an individual because of party loyalty -- I vote for an individual for the sake of being accountable for my own voting decisions and belief systems and research and understandings of the politics of the government, as absolutely and complicated they are and what I can reasonably extrapolate from prior to making a choice prior to final decision making. I have assessed that McCain is a war-monger, Obama is not qualified and Huckabee is just as unqualified.

Posted by josephine | February 10, 2008 12:20 AM

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists.

Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM
WAY TO GO KELLEY! THAT POST WILL BRING OUT ANOTHER 500,000 "ANGRY OLD WHITE FEMINISTS" TO DONATE TO HILLARY CLINTON! AND MAYBE EVEN ANOTHER 200,000 "PANSY PIE FACED WHITE BOYS" TOO! HAHAHAHAHAHA GO HILLARY!

Posted by NURSERATCHET | February 10, 2008 12:25 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

I donated $100.00 since super Teusday just like other people. No one knew she was cash strapped.

Posted by amy | February 10, 2008 1:18 AM

No matter how clever the Clinton camp's rhetoric becomes in regards to claiming their electability, I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good or better of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November. And lastly, poeple who follow Obama close enough know that he is well versed on the issues, he is just more selective about when he chooses to discuss them (i.e. on the campaign trail he focuses his efforts on his message of hope and unity and in debates he discusses the specific issues in their entirety.) In my humble opinion, these are few of many reasons why he continues to gain support.

Posted by Paul | February 10, 2008 1:28 AM

HRC may have raised 10 million but now she says she LOANED the 5 million to herself, so the money I gave her will be used to pay herself back. She really has raised only 5 million. We who have been giving HRC our tax refund checks or dipping into savings or giving up treats to fund her campaign are funding a woman who is estimated to have between 10 and 25 million between she and Bill.

Why do I who make less than 45K a year need to subsidize a couple of millionaires like she and Bill?

What happened to all the millions from all the interest groups who support her? Do we just keep funding her as she recklessly loses all her money AND votes?

Posted by susan | February 10, 2008 1:44 AM

As a young (25 year old) black male supporting Hillary Clinton I am awed and offended by the despicable attacks I have read in the comments posted by Barack Obama supporters. It's ironic to me that the Obama campaign, which has prided itself so highly on it's "character, integrity and being right on day one" has somehow simultaneously succeeded at defacing the heart and soul of the democratic party, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

With that said, I genuinely believe that politically-speaking there is absolutely no difference between these two candidates. They share the same talking points. The only difference between these two candidates is their race, gender, age and experience. And, when it comes to public office, generally of those 4 items, experience is typically seen as a positive. But, alas, it seems that America prefers a candidate who is a superior orator than one who is a proven (time and again) successful candidate that offers a clear and definitely means to get these goals achieved (not the rhetoric of "different equals better" - which was the rhetoric of George W. Bush in 2000).

I am a hardcore democrat and have voted for a democrat in every single election I could possibly participate in since I turned 18. And I will, therefore, support whichever candidate is chosen by the American people and the democratic national party. But, with America at the brink of diseaster, the prospect of a president wasting anytime "figuring out" how to be president, when he/she could be fixing the problems of America seems like a shame and immediately removes any of the alleged "hope" for a quick rejuvenation of our struggling nation.

As for the fund-raising question...I assumed she had enough money, and when I found out otherwise, I gave her everything I could. Sometimes being the front-runner works against you, and being the underdog has it's perks (as Obama experienced in the last month, and now Hillary will experience in the coming month).

Posted by SCHRC Supporter | February 10, 2008 1:45 AM

Anybody who can quit smoking while running for President shows amazing strength. I am a reformed smoker so know how difficult quitting is. Because of his strength, his drug use was minimal both in time and lasting effect. He should be a hero to anyone addicted to anything (Even sex Bill…)

Posted by Madge | February 10, 2008 1:48 AM

Now I remember who Obama reminds me of "The dude is Urkel with a better tailor." Wish I could claim that line.

Posted by josephine | February 10, 2008 1:52 AM

My vote and money is for Senator Clinton. I recently donated for the first time (to any candidate) a night ago. I'm so passionate that I have been telling all my associates to do the same. BO is the cool guy, but my vote is with starkist, it does not just look good.

On another note, if African Americans believe its going to be economically better with a president of the same race, the research does not support it. Will post dissertation discussing the matter soon.

Posted by Michael | February 10, 2008 1:53 AM

What are the odds that she will pimp out this ginned up feud with Schuster to raise money?

Posted by CC | February 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Dear SCHRC Supporter,

Since gender, age and color are superficial to the discussion, then Experience is the ticket it would seem to you.
Obama has more legislative experience as an elected official than Hillary:
Obama: Illinois Senate: 1997-2004; U.S. Senate: 2004-2008
Hillary has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2001.

He has 10 years to her 7. Picking menus and the Christmas tree for the White House doesn’t count in my books as “experience”. Do they do in yours?

Posted by Suzanna | February 10, 2008 1:59 AM

Barack Obama was a light smoker not a heavy smoker. And he should be congratulated for quiting.

The Hillary supporters always sound so mad and angry. I'm tired of the people in our Country being angry. We need to move on.

No more Clintons or Bushs in the White House.

And there will never be a Obama/Clinton combo ticket. Bill would just get in the way. I think Obama has alot better choices for a Vice. And it would be great if some women would be on his short list. I'd love to see Hillary replace Harry Reid.

Posted by Judy | February 10, 2008 2:09 AM

Someone in the comments section of Kevin Drum's blog said it best: The Barack Script ("Hope, hope, hope, gurgle blah blah blah") may win out over Hillary's actual policy knowledge and toughness... then the inevitable McCAIN SCRIPT takes over. Which goes like this: "Most liberal Senator... weak on everything... coke-head... never served his country..." A vote for Barack now equals a vote for McCain in November.

Wake up, dumb fucks. You are not 17 like all of Barack's half-wit supporters, are you? Do you have a brain? Do you want Kerry/Edwards '04 all over again?

Barack Obama = John Kerry. Period.

Posted by SomeoneWhoDoesn'tWantMcCainToWin | February 10, 2008 2:17 AM

But unless the Clinton campaign is just flat out lying, which I will stipulate is most likely not the case, something is going on here that we can't fully appreciate or understand just it.

It was suburban women.

Posted by donna darko | February 10, 2008 2:23 AM

Hillary's experience clearly falls short when it comes to financials. How can you go through $100 million and not see it coming? I guess 35 years of Washington luncheons doesn't mean 35 years of real life experience.

Posted by Carolyn | February 10, 2008 2:25 AM

Hillary's experience clearly falls short when it comes to financials. How can you go through $100 million and not see it coming? I guess 35 years of Washington luncheons doesn't mean 35 years of real life experience.

Posted by Carolyn | February 10, 2008 2:25 AM

I'm one of the Hillary supporters who donated to her cause for the first time since Super Tuesday. I've always supported her and rooted for her cause which are MY cause, but due to financial difficulties (I'm a poor grad student) did not feel I could give much. But after Tuesday, it became clear to me that in order for Hillary to keep her financial momentum and continue to represent us the economically struggling underdogs, we, especially because we are struggling financially, must help her fight with every dollar we could afford.

I gave $275 and feel absolutely good about it. In hard times like these, I want someone who's going to go in there and get things done, make those negotiations, navigate the political red tapes, and make real, pragmatic, and no-nonsense changes so that we CAN realize our dreams and visions.

I don't believe for a second in Obama's pie in the sky. He doesn't get my money, and he sure ain't getting my vote.

Posted by Helen Nelson |

Clinton Finds A Donor Base

Comments (176)