The Money Chase: Obama Sets A Record

By the numbers, Sen. Barack Obama announced today that he has raised more than $54 million for the primaries from a stunning 727,972 contributors -- fully 385,101 of whom were new. $45 million was raised online; 90% of the donations were $100 or smaller; 50% was $25 or smaller. The campaign says that a third of the new donors also participated in some sort of volunteer activity for the campaign.

Not to be outdone... ok, to be totally outdone, on a private Clinton campaign conference call for 600 of Hillraisers, the candidate waxed effusively about her (less) impressive February totals -- "I don't know how we could have done any of this without your support," she said. Actually, most of it was done without their support. $32 million was raised, of which $30 million came from online sources. Clinton was upbeat. She said she had spoken this morning to the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, and looked forward to returning to Pennsylvania, particularly to the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area.

Jonathan Mantz, Clinton's finance director, urged the donors to reach out to uncommitted superdelegates they knew. He did not say what they should say.

This month, Clinton plans to attend fundraisers in Charlotte, Florida, Caifornia, Chicago, Detroit and Puerto Rico.

During a question and answer session later, a donor suggested to Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe that retiring Green Bay Packer Bret Favre be contacted to see if would help Sen. Clinton in Mississippi -- his home state.

McAullife said he would check.

Comments

did terry mention where the tax returns are?

Maybe Brett Favre can xerox the Clintons 2000-2006 tax returns?

what are they hiding?

Posted by jay | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM

Cool. How did the Obama conference call go?

Posted by Craig | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM

That is trylu stunning. It just boggles the mind, the level of money Barack Obama is raising. Credit to where it is due, Obama you have done fantastic.

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Wow! Any idea what the breakdown of HRC's small donor numbers are?

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

So can we assume that if Favre doesn't help her, he's rejected the Clinton campaign?

Posted by Mike | March 6, 2008 4:03 PM

Now where (or who) are those 50 Super delegates who are supposed to announce?

Posted by MDNY | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

That's $91 million for Obama just in '08, for those of you keeping score at home...

Posted by Vermonter | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

During a question and answer session later, a donor suggested to Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe that retiring Green Bay Packer Bret Favre be contacted to see if would help Sen. Clinton in Mississippi -- his home state.

The donar should have suggested that Hillary should have taken a cue from Favre and retire (to the Senate). Favre recognized that it was time for him to call it quits for his sake and his team's future. Hillary needs to accept the same truth.

Posted by Bragan | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Obama raises the largest single total of any month-long period in a Presidential primary, and you spend most of the post talking about Hillary's conference call with her big donors?

unless you're trying to point out that she still just doesn't get it, by spending all of this time plumping and catering to the big single donor politics of the last century rather than building up the small-donor infrastructure necessary to compete in THIS century, what is the point of adding those last paragraphs?

Posted by BA | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM

Why would Favre help HRC in Mississippi when he wouldn't do so in Wisconsin?

Posted by BR | March 6, 2008 4:17 PM

Right on, BA. It would be interesting to do a simple analysis on the posts here. What percentage of posts repeating HRC talking points include Obama rebuttals? What percentage of posts reporting Obama talking points include HRC rebuttals?

It could just be my own reading bias, but it seems like every piece of good news for Obama on this site comes with a caveat from Team Clinton, but Clintons talking points are parroted here at face value.

Posted by Ryno | March 6, 2008 4:18 PM

Favre recognized that he was getting a bit broken down and long in the tooth so he gracefully made his exit. Too bad Hillary hasn't taken a page from that playbook.

Posted by Aaron Rodgers | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM

Yeah, but what good does it do Barry to have all that dough when you outspend your opponent two to one and still can't close the deal in Ohio and Texas? Maybe he should focus a little bit less on money-grubbing, and a little more on providing solutions to the nation's problems.

Posted by Nowinnia | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

The vast majority of his money is raised online, he doesn't need to do anything for it.

Posted by mad6798j | March 6, 2008 4:32 PM

By the numbers, Sen. Barack Obama announced today that he has raised more than $55 million for the primaries in February alone

fixed.

Posted by TIGHT | March 6, 2008 4:36 PM

He raised 54 million for the primary and 1 million for the general = 55 million.

Not that Marc doesn't need a proofreader.

Posted by Margaret | March 6, 2008 4:46 PM

He still lost.

Great management.

Posted by Blaine | March 6, 2008 4:49 PM

"Now where (or who) are those 50 Super delegates who are supposed to announce?"
--MDNY

If they exist--and that's in question--I predict they will roll out slowly to bring the total of supers on each side to roughly equal. That's an argument the campaign can make to the supers--not a big blow all at once (which might have happened with a more powerful showing on Tuesday), but making the difference between the candidates come down to the pledged delegate difference. To make it up, Clinton will need huge proportions of them--2 to 1, 3 to 1. MI and FL might reset that ratio, but not enough.

Posted by Deborah | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

BF -- word. Favre's basically an honorary Wisco native now. Archie/Peyton/Eli/Cooper Manning would go over much better in MS. Plus, I'm pretty sure Favre's a Republican.

Posted by dry_fish | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Not only is that $91 million for 2008 but the first TWO MONTHS of 2008... Unlike HRC, he's also able to raise without ever mentioning his website address in any campaign debate or speech. She raised her money the Jerry Brown 1992 way - by constantly reminding us where to go to give.

Posted by Judy | March 6, 2008 5:12 PM

it's great news that so much of the money came from (presumably) small donations! Let's hope that's here to stay as it might start to change the political dynamic a little...
(I mean in the long term. and, yes, I also wish for a pony...)

Posted by bs23 | March 6, 2008 5:19 PM

Just to be clear, the 2-1, 3-1 ratio refers to the remaining superdelegates Clinton would need to tie if going in trailing by about 100 (a great few months) or 150 (now). Not to the remaining pledged delegates, where she needs about 63% of them to tie it up. (Still shy of 2 to 1, but barely.)

Posted by Deborah | March 6, 2008 5:26 PM

Hmmm. Marc, 3/4 of what you write in this story putatively about Obama's stunning fundraising and volunteer success ends up being nice things about Clinton... Man, your partisanship is showing!

Anyone yelling about him outspending Clinton and still losing OH/TX neglects the fact that he came from 20 pts. down, against a well known establishment candidate. Pulled damned near even in TX, and won the caucuses. Actually came out ahead in delegates, I think. Probably would have won OH minus HRC's negative onslaught (including the bullshit Canadian assist). Sorry folks, but money is what it takes.

And, his current fundraising model DOES allow him to spend less time money grubbing, unlike Clinton who basically constantly has to go lube the big donors..

Posted by Tungsten | March 6, 2008 6:48 PM

Marc - What did Terry say when asked about the unreleased tax returns from the last 7 years?

Posted by Philly Dog | March 6, 2008 6:55 PM

This was a race that began with higher ideals, greater aspirations, boundless hopes, but now, now my fellow Obamaniacs, we have fallen into the trap of negativity, and we knew where it was, it had always existed in the shadows beckoning, awaiting our arrival, hoping we would choose false steps. Who will lead the flock now that we are lost? Obama is "the one" but remember, it was Oprah that coroneted him, and we need her more than ever to help us win this fight so that we may join the ranks of the righteous.

Posted by Tyrone Jenkins | March 6, 2008 7:48 PM

This was a race that began with higher ideals, greater aspirations, boundless hopes, but now, now my fellow Obamaniacs, we have fallen into the trap of negativity, and we knew where it was, it had always existed in the shadows beckoning, awaiting our arrival, hoping we would choose false steps. Who will lead the flock now that we are lost? Obama is "the one" but remember, it was Oprah that coroneted him, and we need her more than ever to help us win this fight so that we may join the ranks of the righteous.

Posted by Tyrone Jenkins | March 6, 2008 7:49 PM

I'm not a committed Obama supporter (I supported the candidate who came in second in Iowa, and I still feel he would have been the strongest general election contender), so the Obama folks don't need to worry about sullying themselves by going negative. I'll do it for you. Let's just say that I feel that the Clintons will not be able to win this election against McCain because of the lasting "stain" that Bill's administration left on the Whitehouse. That "stain" was the decisive factor in preventing Al Gore from being the president of the United States, which, in turn, is the main reason we are now in Iraq. Apparently, it now turns out that the Canadian NAFTA imbroglio involved Hillary's people talking about how she wasn't serious about making real changes, rather than centering on Obama. It seems pretty clear that Hillary won't release her tax records because it will show that the multi-millionaire income of the Cllinton dynasty has very little to do with "lunchbucket" working class democrats who are supposed to be her "go to" voters. Nevertheless, there is much to admire about Hillary. She selflessly stuck by Bill despite his sex addiction and even through the Lewinsky scandal because she altruistically felt the need to serve the citizens of New York, and then, without ever having thought about it much until recently, felt an equal calling to serve the people by becoming their president. How noble can one human being be? Please don't accuse me of using Republican talking points, or being Ken Starr. The RNC already knows all of these things and won't be afraid to use them in the general, even if the Obama campaign won't. Oh, and by the way, I'm still enough of a democrat and interested in getting policies that are superior to those of John McCain that I will do what I can to support Clinton should she wind up winning the nomination. I just won't feel very inspired about it.

Posted by backtobasics | March 6, 2008 9:28 PM

Hillary's "small donors" are sheiks in the
mideast that Bill knows well. Word has it
that none are over 5'6".

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 1:05 AM