« Fred Wertheimer Clarifies | Main | HIllary Clinton As An Efficiently Priced Security » Obama Outraises Clinton In February28 Feb 2008 01:09 pm Hillary Clinton's campaign will report raising approximately $35m in February, a record sum for the campaign. But though Barack Obama's campaign is keeping mum, you can bet that somewhere in Chicago, David Plouffe is cracking a smile. That's because the campaign is expected to announce having raised more than $50M this month, breaking all records and all expectations. Comments (76)
i don't believe HRC raised $35 million in February, NOT FOR ONE SECOND. 
Marc, Ben Smith has the Clinton figure at $35 million, but ABC has it at $24 million. Why the discrepancy? Also, how much of Clinton's money is for the general? And how much debt is the campaign carrying, not including the $5 million loan? I've seen some estimates that their cash on hand is very, very low.
The Clintons are actually Obama's top fundraisers. No one - not even the candidate himself - motivates many of us to give like Bill and Hill.
Breaking all expectations? Maybe in 2007, but I've been hearing talk of breaking 50 since the start of February, from reputable sources. Not that that devalues fifty million dollars. Christ.
DSG: If I recall correctly, she listed $7.5MM in debt at the end of January, excluding the $5MM loan. Her cash on hand, after deducting the $20MM reserved for the general election, was $9MM+ (including the $5MM loan). In short, she was probably broke on February 5th. And is still carrying $12MM in debt (and whatever she owes Penn for this month as well).
Zephyrus- I'll eat my shoe if Obama's total is under $60 million, and frankly, it could well be substantially higher.
Oh, give it up people. This is a huge amount of money for both Dems. I think it means that McCain is in trouble one way or the other:)
$50 Million Clams - Yowee. Isn't the internet great. Buh Bye ... to the bundlers. No longer will people have to sell the Lincoln bedroom for campaign moola. Go OBAMA - Your campaign is awash in green :)
Any hints as to the size of the average contribution size for clinton?
I expect I'll be proven wrong shortly by an official announcement, but $35 million doesn't sound plausible to me. The HRC campaign had a phenomenal first week of the month, raising around $7 million within a couple days after 2/5. Approximately two weeks later -- on 2/19, I believe, they announced that they had taken in around $15 million for the month. And now we hear that they've managed to raise $35 million in a month with little-to-no good news for Clinton and where the campaign has had to float varyingly impausible paths of success to their fundraisers? The $24 million reported elsewhere strikes me as a more plausible number, but like I said, I expect that the campaign will officially announce the $35 million number later today or tomorrow, and that will be that.
Uhhmmmm ... how many Hillary supporters out there voting for McCain in the general??? Comments like JR's and Waterman's are gold to motivate Hillary supporters to vote McCain in the general. Florida Democrats: 31% of registered Democrats will vote for McCain over Obama. Nice!
Not sure about average, but you can look at some interesting charts. Here is pct from donors of $200 or less and here is pct from donors of $2,300.
I laugh when I hear talk about the Dems being the party of small contributors. In truth, the GOP has always had more individual small contributors with the Dems relying on a smaller number of big contributors. This year has been different only because of Bush's unpopularity and lack of enthusiasm among the GOP base.
libby: I'm guessing that you've seen poll after poll showing Obama beating McCain and McCain beating Hillary. In many states. And nationally. So whatever your point is...
Bringing in more than $50 million for February would be an impressive feat, but I'd like to know how one breaks all expectations by doing what is expected.
Libby --- HRC and Obama are very close to each other on the issues. So, on the issues, there is no reason HRC supporters would support McCain, unless they really think the Iraq War was a good idea or something. Some will turn to McCain, but they are probably the ones who don't like black people. I haven't seen any evidence that McCain gains a large number of HRC supporters. Recent polls consistently show Obama performing better than HRC against McCain. (FWIW, I also think HRC will get most Obama supporters, if she is the nominee).
Everyone agrees the key question is how much did Hillary raise for the primaries versus the general election. Right now she's being outspent almost 2 to 1 in Ohio and Texas. That STRONGLY indicates to me that a LARGE portion of this $35 million is for the general election. That money will be refunded if she loses. Given where she is right now, it is probably a much easier sell to get someone to give a refundable $2,300 for the general election than max out a new donor at $2,300 for the primary.
I don't understand you Hillary supports, I've been watching this race and it simply amazes me how you can say I want the democratic party to win but I won't vote for Obama, why are you all cutting off your noses to spite your faces. And before you accuse me of being bias. I am Jamaican and I have no stake what so ever in your country I am just an interested obsever. I sympathize with Hillary when some of the Obama supporters say they won't vote for her but some ARE Independents and some are Republicans. I just don't get it?
Great point, SP. Also I've noticed that every mention of this story I've seen so far sources Ben Smith at Politico for the $35 million figure. Has anyone seen any independent corroboration yet?
John D: You're correct about Hillary supporters voting for Obama, but I think the point that was being made was that many people's comments about the Clintons are vindictive. That at least risks producing the kind of purely emotional reaction amongst Hillary's core supporters that leave them very cool to Obama's candidacy. That's why I think it's so important for the party to come together and unite in a substantial way.
"Florida Democrats: 31% of registered Democrats will vote for McCain over Obama. Nice!" Also Florida: McCain wins 47 to 37 percentage points over Barack Obama, and 49 to 40 over Hillary Clinton in a potential general election matchup. While Florida Democrats: only 24 percent said the national party should allow Clinton's win in Florida to count toward delegates. source:
Obama gained his one-millionth contributor yesterday. Imagine what one million donors means to the Obama campaign and for America. 1. Senator Obama no longer has to hold fund raising events. I recall working on a statewide campaign where my candidate spent nearly half of his time raising money. On the other hand, the opponent was entirely self-funded. When he needed money; he wrote a check. Senator Obama's contributors can fund his campaign without fundraising events and he can devote all of his time to campaigning. 2. With a million contributors, the Obama campaign can be financed well through the nomination. He can campaign nationwide spending millions of dollars to make certain he has won the nomination and all of his delegates remain committed to him. 3. Should he become President, when Barack Obama considers an issue, his mind will not be clouded by a handful of people who raised a million dollars for his campaign. Rather he can be a President that says "nobody's President but yours."
No instead he'll be a one man MoveOn.Org.
X: in 2004 In 2000 And the GOP is the party of small contributors?
$35 million for the primaries and the general, Obama's $55M is mostly for the primaries.
Who in their right mind would donate to a campaign that has wasted the money donated to them in 2007? I would not give a gambler or drug addict money knowing they are going to blow it. (Clinton)
The economy can't be that bad if so many people can pony up to throw away money on political ads and consultants for a candidate. Maybe those tax cuts helped some people after all. I sure hope all those people we read about with foreclosed homes don't turn out to have donated money to any politician...but given their apparent inability to make sound financial decisions I'd probably be disappointed.
Not a hefty sum for Hillary considering she got guilt/pity donations from supporters over her personal $5 million loan, and requested that folks donate to her failed inept campaign during the televised debate (of all times!).
I gave $25! SO whats that, I own 1/100000000 of the campaign? :)
I am a supporter Senator Hillary Clinton, and I’ve contributed financially to her campaign. I feel she is the most qualified to be President. As a college educated young woman, I am proud to have a qualified and viable woman running for President. It's about time. America is a leader in the world, yet other countries have had women Presidents and Prime Ministers (e.g. England, Pakistan, Israel, Argentina, Philippines, India, etc.). American women were given the right to vote in 1920, after a long struggle. A few women have attempted to run for President, without success. We now have a strong and viable candidate in Hillary. It’s a tough job running for President. For a woman, it’s even tougher. Let's support Senator Clinton and make history by electing her the FIRST WOMAN President of the US. A woman President will be CHANGE. We may not get this chance again for many years. See link below for more info the history of women in America and the world. Thank you. http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm
I am so scared that Hillary won't win. if she doesn't, I will give up on politics and on any hope that this country will ever regain its name and its once power. look at the american dollar how weak it is compared to so many other countries. look how badly this country is viewed in the world. and not only that but on top of it,this campaign showed how badly men and the media hate women here in US and harass them in the public eye. I for one, hope from the botom of my heart that one day men will stop treating women so badly and grow up and stop wil all the unecessary harassment and treat women with respect and dignity, but I am not sure when that wil happen in thos country. all I see is harassement.
America is a leader in the world, yet other countries have had women Presidents and Prime Ministers (e.g. England, Pakistan, Israel, Argentina, Philippines, India, etc.). You're incorrect. England has never had a female prime minister.
Here's another link that will provide some well deserved perspective about my personal heroine, Senator Hillary Clinton. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbiansinhistory/Famous_Lesbians_and_Bisexual_Women_in_History.htm
The economy can't be that bad if so many people can pony up to throw away money on political ads and consultants for a candidate. When your average donation is just $125, it's not as big a deal. Thats less then a week of food for a whole family. The economy's shit, and just being held up by corp profits and investors who don't want to finally lose out like the rest of us.
H is for how Hot you are
Jeff Larson, Re: Your comment---"England has never had a female Prime Minister." Does the name, Margaret Thatcher, ring a bell?
fifty million dollars? how much of that comes from rezko and his buddies?
The prime minister is the PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Describing Maggie as the PM of England is like saying George Bush is the president of Massachusetts. I mean, sorta, but not really.
Yes, Sen. Clinton will have raised a busload this month. Every stump speech, from what I recall 3 of the last 4 debates, she has advertised her website. If anyone would like to know what her blog reads like, it's pretty much this:
Jeff Larson: How about Margaret Thatcher? I'm sure the poster meant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when he/she wrote England...
Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts; born 13 October 1925) is a former British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She is the first and to date only woman to hold either post.[1] She is also the oldest living British Prime minister.
I'm sure the poster meant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when he/she wrote England... Oh, undoubtedly. But in this great struggle, I find that I must be ever diligent, even when it makes me petty and pedantic...
Tara K, not to burst your bubble, but every candidate's blog reads like that. I remember John Edwards's blog reading like that ... the day before he dropped out. It's self-selection at its worst.
Jeff Larson... Haha, I know...not really sure what to make of it, sometimes it seems inspirational--giving til it hurts and all--but mostly it makes me sad for those people who are, in essence, using their grocery money to pay some politician's bills. Kind of like volunteering to pay taxes. But no! It's good people are getting involved, right? Aahhh I don't know. Yeah, let's just call it self-selection.
fifty million dollars? how much of that comes from rezko and his buddies? Probably not as much as Shrillary gets from Norman Hsu and his Chinese cronies.
tsr: You are suggesting that Hillary's "femaleness" should enter, at least partially, into our decision-making process when selecting the best presidential candidate. How is that not sexist? We would decry any person as a misogynist if s/he did not vote for Hillary on the basis of her sex. Yet you are asking us to select her because she is a woman. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either we ignore the fact that she is a woman, or it is relevant and we can elect her (or not) on the basis of her sex. As a woman, I prefer the former. The latter constitutes too much of a slippery slope.
I will be surprised if Clinton actually raised $35 million. I will not be surprised if Obama actually raised $50 million. It sounds weird, but falling only $15 million short is a excellent news for Hillary. Who are all these people giving her small donations? It's shocking. She can keep going through June, apparently.
How much of this is for the primary and how much is for the general? Clinton is always slow to answer this question since thee answer is never good news for her. Also, why this $35 vs $24 million discrepancy?
For all you people quoting poll results of Dem v. Republican in Florida -- you are horribly misleading the average reader of this blog. You all are forgetting that McCain spent a lot of money and time in Florida while neither of the Democrats campaigned there whatsoever. I suggest you look at more reliable polls such as those taken in Ohio or PA.
As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I started out being excited about the two fine candidates the Democrats had fielded for this campaign. As the race went on I became startled by the venom that Democrats spewed against each other and the the invectives they threw towards Sen. Clinton In November I will write in Sen. Clinton as my candidate for President since my votes don't really count. I have contributed at least ten times to her campaign this month.
As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I started out being excited about the two fine candidates the Democrats had fielded for this campaign. As the race went on I became startled by the venom that Democrats spewed against each other and the the invectives they threw towards Sen. Clinton In November I will write in Sen. Clinton as my candidate for President because I live in Florida and my votes don't really count. I have contributed at least ten times to her campaign this month.
let me know when the kids get off this board....na an na na na!!!!
Ever notice how the people espousing the most absurd viewpoints tend to be the ones to post the same message multiple times in short succession? PEBCAK, indeed.
Hi Pauline,
Hi Pauline,
"As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I started out being excited about the two fine candidates the Democrats had fielded for this campaign. As the race went on I became startled by the venom that Democrats spewed against each other and the the invectives they threw towards Sen. Clinton In November I will write in Sen. Clinton as my candidate for President because I live in Florida and my votes don't really count. I have contributed at least ten times to her campaign this month." I'm sorry, all the venom thrown at Clinton? After Billy Shaheen called Obama a drug dealer. After all the race-baiting Bill Clinton did in South Carolina, and after her strategists started hurling idiotic statements like "can't he win any significant states besides Illinois?!" This is exactly why I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is the toughest candidate, instead of standing up strong and being gracious in defeat, she and her supporters start complaining about being ganged up on. In the immortal words of Bill Clinton "Give me a break!"
There are a lot of conversations about why Clinton's voters would vote for McCain if she did not get the nomination. For those who dare to speak up, they are being ridiculed as disloyal, etc. I think that the larger point is to ask why? Here are my guesses and would like to hear other perspectives: 1. These are the people who value experience, so when they compare Obama and McCain, they see that McCain has tons of experience and also a centrist who has demonstrated that he does reach across the parties. 2. These voters may be disillusioned that the DNC has allowed Obama to divide the country. While it is true that he gets a lot of people out to vote, but the motivation is strongly race-based, hence the country is now more divisive and not united as he preaches. Example: the civil right leader Lewis publicly stomps on a minority, a white woman, and breaks his word so that he can endorse a black man. 3. They may remember Massachusetts when the voters there fell under the spell of Davel(sp) the one whose Obama models many of his speeches on. The guy could not deliver because rhetoric were just rhetoric after he won MA. 4. They see that it has taken over a year for Obama to become a better debater and the media was acting so proud of reporting this achievement. How many years does it take to train him on being a president 5. The number of times when Obama keeps saying "I agree with senator Clinton' for tough questions and then say "I will add...' and instead of adding on new points, he basically just repeats the same thing that she just said. He is a student and she is his teacher. Other thoughts?
@Sylvie: "Other thoughts?" Yeah, the teacher should totally try to learn something from the student about running a campaign. She walked into this primary season with all of the advantages -- name recognition, a Senate seat in a major state, a husband who was a very popular president among Democrats, and an "inevitable" tag from the press -- and she's still getting outmaneuvered. Race did not lose her, say, Iowa, and if she loses Texas, it's surely not going to be because of race either. Being president is about being smart and organized, knowing how to handle money, and an ability to read the pulse of the American people. She's certainly smart, but so's Obama; and as far as the other criteria go, where's the evidence that she's the superior candidate? It's not enough simply to say, "Oh, it's the media," because we all know that, for better or for worse, to succeed in national politics in this country, you have to work the media. And again -- these were the same news outlets that had more or less decided she was getting the nomination just a few months ago. Clinton supporters are driving me a little nuts. They keep plugging the "she's more capable" routine, but this campaign was supposed to be the evidence for that -- and the evidence isn't in her favor.
With respect to the post by Sylvie about reasons for Clinton supporters to vote for McCain over Obama: I hear supporters of both Clinton and Obama saying that they will never vote for the other candidate. In my perspective, this reaction is mostly an emotional reaction and/or a dislike for the personality and campaigning strategies of the other candidate. Why? 1. In my opinion, the platforms of both candidates are strikingly similar. If one is voting for platform primarily and has actually read through the plans of all the candidates, then it doesn't make sense to pick McCain over either Democrat. 2. Neither democratic candidate has a very thick resume with regard to national office, so I don't really buy the experience argument, especially since Obama has more years of total elected experience (just not at the national level) than Clinton. BOTH of them have more years of elected experience than Bush did in 2000. The democratic candidates with long national resumes dropped out a long time ago, so it is hard for me to believe that the voters really value this, when push comes to shove. 3. I think that both Clinton and Obama have modified their plans considerably on the campaign trail (for instance, I think Bill Richardson influenced the direction of their energy policies). I should hope they are willing to learn in the campaign process! I would never want to vote for anyone who is unwilling to modify their proscribed plan for the country when faced with new information, ideas, and discussions.
First of all, every time I hear Senator Clinton speak on the campaign trail, in debates, or via mass mailings, or smear e-mails, she is lying about Obama or bashing him in some way, shape or form. As a result, there is no way that I believe anything that comes from the Clinton camp about funds raised or anything else. Any candidate who is willing to lie is not presidential, is not honorable, and will not fool the American people! Also, the other day, a New York Times poll came out that confirmed what Obama’s recent wins also show – that Senator Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November. According to the Times, “In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to defeat Senator John McCain…. Nearly 6 in 10 say he has the best chance of beating Mr. McCain, double the numbers who believed Mrs. Clinton was more electable.”
It's an old comment now, as what had been a topical discussion about fundraising got hijacked by the same old 'my candidate can beat up your candidate' nonsense, but Tomkraj raised an important point: Obama has achieved an automatic flow of money, while Clinton has been highly distracted by the need to raise money herself. It is frequently alleged that Clinton is featuring her website in her speeches as a way to raise money, but I think this is disputable, as the website also serves other purposes of exciting informing potential supporters and enlisting their efforts on the street and on the phones. But Clinton has spent significant time and effort lately attending old-fashioned fundraisers. She was here in Boston over the weekend with a small elite fundraising event and a larger small-dollar event, and I heard that she hosted a major fundraiser in DC this week. She is not going to get any more delegates in either DC or Massachusetts, as both have already voted; she needs to raise money so badly that she spent an entire day in Boston rather than in a state that will vote on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has achieved a flow of money that constantly replenishes his coffers while leaving his schedule unencumbered. He may be raising as much as twice her primary haul - and without taking time off from campaigning. P.S. The general-vs-primary dollar distinction is probably also important. The Clinton campaign continued its practice in January of raising General election dollars to boost their apparent totals; indeed, there were news reports that their key fundraisers were working hard to raise unspendable general election dollars specifically so that Clinton's January numbers would seem to approach Obama's. With Clinton hosting top-dollar elite fundraisers, you can be sure those attending are being hit up for the full $4600.
As a left-leaning Independent, I definitely had the "my candidate or McCain" moment a couple weeks ago. But then... the McCain campaign and GOP affiliates started throwing some javelins into the Democratic camp. That was all it took to refocus my mind on the possibility of another 4 years of Bush policies, and I thank Obama's and Clinton's talking points for reminding me of this daily.
Oh, and Deval Patrick is a fabulous Governor.
Hillary supporters often give great head due to the lack of teeth. Just an observation.
"The HRC campaign had a phenomenal first week of the month, raising around $7 million within a couple days after 2/5. Approximately two weeks later -- on 2/19, I believe, they announced that they had taken in around $15 million for the month." "The $24 million reported elsewhere strikes me as a more plausible number, but like I said, I expect that the campaign will officially announce the $35 million number later today or tomorrow, and that will be that." I agree. If you do a daily average, this is what I came up with. $15MM in the first nineteen days of the month equals HRC raising approximately $789,473 per day. If you run that number over the course of 29 days for the entire month that comes up to $22,894,736 fior the month. Now, this doesn't take two things into account. One, she acknowledges that she had a surge immediately after Super Tuesday, which would probably mean she slowed down after that. Two, Obama has won eleven contests since then, presumably causing a drastic momentum shift in flowing dollars. Another interesting fact is that Obama just reached his One Millionth individual supporter with the vast majority being able to give much more, having not reached the limit of $2,300 and the vast majority being available for the primaries.
Jeff Larson - Hey thanks for the clarification on Margaret Thatcher and on George Bush's status in Massachusetts. I knew the guy was a fraud, now I'm just glad to know he's really not my fraud, since I live in Massachusetts. Sylvie - as a woman, I am voting for Obama for many reasons, not the least of them being these two: Susan Rice, Samantha Power. If you want to support women you can be proud of, I suggest you read up a bit on these two members of Obama's inner circle.
NO CHANGE IN POLITICAL CORRUPT BACKERS WITH HUSSEN OBAMA!!! EACH WEEK WE HEAR ANOTHER ONE, OBAMA IS CONSTANLY SURROUNDED BY CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE CAMPAGINE FUNDS ARE CONCERNED WHERES CNN? MSNBC? FOX/ ROLAND MARTIN? IDIOT TUCKER CARLSON? BILL KRISTOL? TIM RUSSETT? AND ANYOTHER SO-CALLED TABLOID ENQUIRER TYPE ANIT FEMALE JOURALIST
NO CHANGE IN POLITICAL CORRUPT BACKERS WITH HUSSEN OBAMA!!! EACH WEEK WE HEAR ANOTHER ONE, OBAMA IS CONSTANLY SURROUNDED BY CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE CAMPAGINE FUNDS ARE CONCERNED WHERES CNN? MSNBC? FOX/ ROLAND MARTIN? IDIOT TUCKER CARLSON? BILL KRISTOL? TIM RUSSETT? AND ANYOTHER SO-CALLED TABLOID ENQUIRER TYPE ANTI FEMALE JOURALIST
NO CHANGE IN POLITICAL CORRUPT BACKERS WITH HUSSEN OBAMA!!! EACH WEEK WE HEAR ANOTHER ONE, OBAMA IS CONSTANLY SURROUNDED BY CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE CAMPAGINE FUNDS ARE CONCERNED WHERES CNN? MSNBC? FOX/ ROLAND MARTIN? IDIOT TUCKER CARLSON? BILL KRISTOL? TIM RUSSETT? AND ANYOTHER SO-CALLED TABLOID ENQUIRER TYPE ANTI FEMALE JOURALIST
I'm so tired of Clinton's "first woman/sea change" line. No one has picked up on it but when she was on the Newshour the other night, she was asked if it wasn't just as much of a sea change to elect a black man. She goes, "Well, 50% of the population is female..." I found it pretty icky in its implications (women matter more than black folk cause there are more of em?) but it got me thinking: How many countries have elected a leader from an ethnic minority?
I'm so tired of Clinton's "first woman/sea change" line. No one has picked up on it but when she was on the Newshour the other night, she was asked if it wasn't just as much of a sea change to elect a black man. She goes, "Well, 50% of the population is female..." I found it pretty icky in its implications (women matter more than black folk cause there are more of em?) but it got me thinking: How many countries have elected a leader from an ethnic minority?
Ugh sorry for the double post...
Recent ethnic minority national leaders: Going back a little further, Benjamin Disraeli (UK) might count. He was born to Jewish parents, though he was baptized into the Church of England.
I've read carefully each post here and find that, as is true of almost every "progressive" blog these days, a number of posters are not just Obama supporters, but nasty, Clinton-hating ones to boot. I'm a Democrat who first worked in Adlai Stevenson's second campaign--and yes, to the slob with the vicious pen, I have all my teeth so I can't perform what you seem to enjoy so much. In any case, I began this campaign favoring Senator Dodd and Senator Biden. I moved to Edwards, and finally to Senator Clinton. I've never voted in my long life for a Republican for President and couldn't imagine such a thing, until the last few months. The venom and nastiness of Democrat to Democrat is something I've never experienced before, and about 3/4 of it comes from Obama fans towards the Clintons. I expected this slime from the right wing Clinton haters but was shocked to see so much of it from our own people towards two great Americans and great Democrats. And so...so, I'm going to think about John McCain, should Mr. Obama win our nomination. I cannot reward the kind of vile and hateful and arrogant behavior that so many of Obama's fans show every day, on nearly every blog. And to add to that, the almost entirely one-sided press coverage and cruelly anti-Hillary punditocracy has made me really angry and really sad, both. I read Dowd and Herbert and Robinson and KOS and Marshall and Shapiro and I watch Williams and Russert and Matthews and Olbermann and they all write or broadcast the same pro-Obama line. I hear every "Democratic analyst" interviewed attacking Clinton and backing Obama. Someone said that in primaries, people tend to vote on emotion but in the general election they tend to vote on reason. That may be true, and I hope it is, because that will bring me back to my party and to the Democratic candidate. But in the meantime, I will do my best to help Senator Clinton prosper. One of the more amusing things about this thread is all of those who go to elaborate efforts in trying to discount Clinton's fundraising--primary or general? 35 mill or less?--yet accept without a hint of skepticism the GUESS of 50 million for Obama. Amazing. I'm on a fixed income but have been one of her 200,00 new donors this past month, and I will do it more. Not from "pity" or "insanity" as some would have it. I support the best we have to offer and I support the person who has stood strongly in virtually unique situations such as this crazy blending of hatred from her own party and hatred from the powerful MSM. Go, Hillary!!
ldvqkoau rcvkbxei sahf pxfmeirbq eufrpw phkawv ogvj
|
SearchAdvertisement
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel 
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
|
Trippi redeemed?
Posted by dry_fish | February 28, 2008 1:20 PM