Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Tops Obama in Money Chase

The Clintons, plus Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen, at a Martha's Vineyard fundraiser this month. (AP).

The Green Zone: Special Third Quarter Fundraising Edition

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton announced this morning that she raised $27 million over the past three months, a figure that continues to keep her well out in front of both Democrats and Republicans in terms of total dollars raised.

Clinton for the first time appeared to find wider success raising money from grassroots supporters - her campaign said it received checks from more than 100,000 new donors, more than double the number of donors who gave to her during the first three months of her campaign. Read more on Clinton.

Read all The Trail's fundraising coverage

-- Edwards Took in $7 Million

-- A 20 Million Third Quarter for Obama

-- First the Fundraising Reports, Then the Campaign Fallout

-- Where Did Money Come From This Summer? Try Vacationland.

By Post Editor  |  October 2, 2007; 9:34 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In First Lady Race,
Romney First Online

Next: Never Mind the Veepstakes--Who's Next
As Secretary of State?


All unspent campaign funds may be donated by candidate to a legal 501 3C charity. The Clinton Foundation is a 501-3C charity. Who believes Hillary Hsu really wants to be President?

Posted by: springco1 | October 27, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama, Clinton? Which incompetent socialists do you prefer? I know that the Chinese are forever grateful to the Clintons for providing them with missile technology, right Hsu...what do you want now and how much more money have you funneled to them?

Posted by: ekim53 | October 2, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

"So, people, quit whining and crying and start looking into these matters. If you continue to believe these falsely inflated claims about Obama - whether derived from melodrama or bias - you will remain misinformed fools." BILL, IS THAT YOU?

We loved you - we love you still. But not enough to support Hillary. Yes, there IS a grass roots movement for Obama and it is HUGE - in your own backyard, in Washington Square park and in Iowa, where it really counts now.

I am not whining - I am screaming! Ready to go to war with Iran? I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!
And so should we all be - out in the streets screaming. Will it really take a draft to end this foolish war? I am sure if the children of priviledge were called to serve, there would be a different story.

Or will it take a real statesman and diplomat, someone who can obviously win people over with great compassion and integrity who inspires others to be better people. Hey, ask what you can do for your country. Remember him?

Posted by: sheridan1 | October 2, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Wow, reading these posts reminds me why I was so happy to leave Washington. I had not recollection, prior to reading The Trail, that Post readers were so lowbrow. Check your facts, people. Clinton has raised more money in every quarter, from MORE PEOPLE in every quarter, than has Obama. In fact, she added a third again more new contributors this quarter than did Obama. All this brouhaha about the media being slanted and no one is sharp enough to check the facts? Yes, it does appear to be slanted. For instance, Clinton had already reported that she gained $27M BEFORE the Post rant the Mathew Mosk article touted Obama's gains this quarter and falsely, and materially, reducing Clinton's. Jeez, folks, are we to believe that the Post has become so substandard that a published reporter can't check the most relevant of information?

So, people, quit whining and crying and start looking into these matters. If you continue to believe these falsely inflated claims about Obama - whether derived from melodrama or bias - you will remain misinformed fools.

Posted by: akossnar | October 2, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Since this is probably the only thing that hasn't been said yet: the polls show overwhelmingly that young, upper-middle class educated people want Obama, and lower-middle class people and the uber-wealthy want Hillary. The question is, which interest group do you trust to stand up for YOUR interests in the 21st century?

Posted by: shepherc | October 2, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The part of the (suspiciously-glowing) NYT article this morning that is the most telling is this: "The campaign also had a busy calendar of fund-raising events, including successful receptions in the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket this fall, as well as in California."

This speaks volumes about where the contributions are coming from. Of course she's getting more donations - but the money has the agendas of the minority elite attached. Obama prides his candidacy on bringing in contributions from "everyday-Americans".

The fact is Mrs. Clinton is just as corrupt as the current white house occupants:

"Bill Clinton used his influence to kill a GQ magazine story that painted an unflattering portrait of infighting in the Clinton campaign. He reportedly threatened to withdraw his co-operation on another story unless the article about his wife was dropped. The story was later killed. As well as showing the campaign's hardball attitude, the incident also showed the huge benefits of having Bill Clinton on your side in any political contest."
- Guardian Sept. 30, 07

As a proud contributor to the Obama campaign I share his audacity of hope that a grassroots political movement can uproot entrenched politicians in it just to win the game. This is not a game, this is the future of our country.

Posted by: harmony.starr | October 2, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but suspect that most of the anti-Hillary comments are posted by Republicans. If not, I would only point out that the negative opinions held of Mrs. Clinton have been generated by about 14 years of unfounded smears and slime stemming from the well oiled right wing attack machine. Yet Hillary and Bill beat them before and will beat them again. If Barrack does get the nomination will you folks also believe the smears that will be rubbed all over him by the David Broders, Rush Limbaughs, and Sean Hannitys of this world?


Posted by: odug | October 2, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Evidently, not all the Hsu's have dropped.

Conniving Calculating Clinton has probably sold the Lincoln bedroom 1 million times over.


Posted by: ImpeachNOW | October 2, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I will not support her. If the Green Party or some other progressive-based political party has a presidential candidate, he or she has got my vote, my money, and my volunteer time.

Hillary will be a great improvement over the worst presidential administration in US history (2001-2009). No doubt there. However, she will sell out health care reform, the environment, and social security to corporations. Wall Street will be richly rewarded thanks to Clinton. Hillary Clinton is no friend to the general American population.

Posted by: coldbliss | October 2, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

As a non-rich person (community college professor) I am waiting to give money to whoever looks like they are going to run in the general election. If it's Hillary she can count on me. I suspect that there are many others like me who Hillary has not yet "tapped out"

Posted by: abenolke | October 2, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Say what you want about Hillary but there is no question that she is far superior to all the other candidates in knowledge of the military, health care needs, and debating skills. She stands our best chance to take back the White House
Poker Chip

Posted by: mike.hoban4 | October 2, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Senator Clinton and her staff. She's running a very strong campaign and deserves the financial support she's receiving. We are very pleased with her work here in New Hampshire.

Posted by: hc74nh | October 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

To the person who claims that all Senator Clinton's money comes from rich donors, I'd like to say I gave $25 this quarter, and my income is at the poverty level. I have Medicare part A health insurance, and that's it.

BTW, I think ALL the Democratic candidates are head and shoulders above anything the Republicans have to offer. I have, in past quarters, contributed to Edwards and Richardson too (I have to spread out my donations because of limited funds).

I think Obama is a fine young man, but this is not his year. He needs to season a bit. Like that classic ad: "We will sell no wine before its time." To paraphrase: "We will run no candidate before his prime." That's how I feel about Obama.

Posted by: dotellen | October 2, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Stirring the pot - the DEMS don't want us to remember but ...

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:


Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?


A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!

The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!


Then, after all this deceit and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Posted by: sallie.mae | October 2, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I should add that I voted for Bill Clinton twice.

Posted by: dpack | October 2, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

To Jnurse:

I posted earlier and I am not a democrat - nor am I bitter. I could care less if the democrats beat the republicans. I do care about this country and selecting the best person for president regardless of party affiliation. Like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton's candidacy is nepotism in its worst form and little more than a disingenuous attempt to grant Bill Clinton a 3rd term.

Hopefully, the American people will reject this attempt to extend the Clinton presidency and select a leader whose success is based on personal accomplishment that was not a result of his or her last name.

Posted by: dpack | October 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

jnurse,you are absolutely right .Clinton haters:eat your hearts!!because she will win the nomination and the presidency. Obama is a nice,decent guy but he has no chance at all.

Posted by: zeldman81 | October 2, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

What a waste - there is absolutely NO WAY I will ever subject myself to Ms. Clinton as Commander in Chief. I am a senior military officer and I will resign my commission before I will let her command me, or any woman for that matter.

Posted by: XHog | October 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post-- did anyone read this article before you posted it? There are a bunch of typos and how about the last couple sentences:
A study of donations made during the first six months of 2007 found that more than 80 percent of people who donated to candidates in the 2008 race did not give money in 2004.

"More than 8 out of 10 donors who gave in the last presidential election have not weighed in yet," Malbin said. "There's a lot of untapped capacity out there."

Your quote contradicts your data. Which is correct?

Posted by: lorin.hancock | October 2, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

This continuing emphasis on the number and amount of campaign contributions, simply reminds Americans of the extent to which Washington politicans are on sale to the highest bidder....More money /=/ more likely to get elected, not in this election, I suspect.

Posted by: billcarr54 | October 2, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

You have to love spin. This is a primary, so the question is how much did each candidate raise during the primary. I believe that number for Clinton is 22 million but just as when she gave herself 10 million from her senatorial coifers, the MSM conflates the numbers and pretends that she significantly outraised everyone. It would laughable if I didn't know that there are people out there who will buy into this spin.

Posted by: bluevoter | October 2, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

jnurse - your "bitter much" comment speaks directly to the reasons why many of us are supporting Barak Obama. The primaries are not over the day they begin, and why anyone would want them to be is baffling. Frankly, I have very little confidence that Senator Clinton will provide as much change to the "failed Bush policies" as Obama or Edwards, or any of the other Democratic candidates, would.
Senator Obama's resume is exceptional - he has held elected office for 12 years, Senator Clinton, only 8. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review and worked as a community organizer. He's lived abroad and has a sharp eye on foreign policy. She is running on her record as First Lady, an "office" she held by default, and yet also wants to run on "her own record." She cannot have it both ways.
I don't love her or hate her, and I won't be voting for her because she is not the strongest candidate when it comes to experience, policy, judgement, or lack of partisanship.
I am not bitter, because the election hasn't happened yet. I am hopeful and excited to see the democratic process play out. You shouldn't count your chickens, my friend.

Posted by: squintz | October 2, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Everyone should know exactly how Hilary Clinton can raise so much money with so few donors. A quick investigation into the public donation records from last quarter suggests that her campaign is collecting more than $4600 per donor. The rules are very strict, no more than $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general election. A quick glance of a few wealthy zip codes found:

J. Bonovitz (zip 19103) donated $4600, then $2300
J. Leonard (zip 19102), two donations $2300, then $300
S. Johnson (zip 90067), three donations $2300
R. Gonzalez-Bunster (zip 06830), three donations $2300
H. Balley (zip 10018), two donations $2300, then $2000

And last I checked, "Solera Consulting," as a company, is not exactly a US citizen (zip code 10514).

Her campaign does not know how to do simple math. Should Ms. Clinton run the country if she already practices above the law? Sounds like our current pres. who thinks he is above the law.

Posted by: marisa_j | October 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

A fool and their money are soon parted.

Posted by: virgin12 | October 2, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

This proves Hillary is our enemies (The CFR) favorite candidate.
And since CFR members control the electronic voting machines, say hello to your newly selected NWO figurehead.

Posted by: eco-pharm | October 2, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

When reading all of the posts above, the following two words come to mind "bitter much?" The fact of the matter is that for the first time in a long time the Democrats are pounding the Republicans in fundraising. Like Hillary or hate her, she is running away with this race, getting stronger by the day. The primaries will be over on the day they begin, and the general election will not be as close as people think. Again, lover her or hate her, the country wants an end to the failed Bush policies and will not elect a candidate that promotes them. All of you Obama and Edwards supporters, your candidates are great guys who love our country and could do well, but their resumes are a bit light to apply to lead the free world.

Posted by: jnurse | October 2, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I would guess that about 30% of the above posts are "generated" by Republican marketing machines that are trying to shift the focus to Democratic infighting.

The real story is that according to those figures, Democratic leaders are getting about three times more cash than Republican opponents. Still waiting on Rudy, but that's a pretty big lead.

Posted by: graggc | October 2, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

You know Pagpag, you are exactly right, it really isn't money which gives one an advantage, its endorsements, but the money helps, because most of what is raised in a Presidential bid, can be given to the state party or state elected for their campaign coffers, and that is what motivates most endorsements, that and future access.

This is where Hillary has a real unfair advantage, because she and Bill have been filling campaign war chest all around the country for 20 years, so she has an advantage with the endorsements.

But when it comes to grassroot support, I don't think Clinton matches Obama, but I guess with such universal name recognition, you may not need super enthusiastic supporters.

I still believe Obama is the best hope for America, we as a country have gotten too stuck in our ways and Bush and the neo-Cons have exploited this collective inertia to the peril of all of us. We need a President with different ideas, who can inspire, but has had the life experience of living abroad, particularly in a moderate Muslim country, as well as working in our failing communities dealing with real life problems and real life people.

And Patrick Herron, yes, if you've never given to a campaign before, and you give $5 , then you definitely will be motivated to vote for that person. Clinton has support, because of her name, but as more and more people get to see Obama, they will be inspired especially with his new lead in the Iowa polls.

Posted by: johnnyspazm | October 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I just love this brand of insightful, hard-edged political reporting. As usual, the news media tells its readers absolutely NOTHING about the actual issues involved, but they give us plenty of info about which candidate leads the pack in fundraising, which candidate leads in the polls, which candidate "blasted" (that is, disagreed with) another candidate, which candidate committed a major "gaffe," etc., etc. This is what passes for political reporting in America. And it does a huge disservice to the electorate. Our news media is rapidly becoming a disgrace and an embarrassment to our country.

Posted by: rhynum | October 2, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Well I guess another set of rich socialites were ripped off by some "Fund" that promises 100% return. Or was it grandmas being drawn into a pyramid scheme on the Internet.

Either way, when it comes to H. Clinton and finance...beware.

Posted by: jabailo | October 2, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Let's see. Of all Clinton's middle of the night pardonees, how many have not yet contributed their fair payoffs to the wife's campaign. Has Marc Rich weighed in yet? His money alone can buy the election right now.

Posted by: mhenry | October 2, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

It is not the case that the candidate with the most money wins the nomination. In fact, some research suggests that the candidate who receives the most support from party insiders (measured in terms of endorsements) is the candidate who wins. So while I'm personally thrilled to see that Hillary did well, I don't think that gives her the advantage. I think her advantage comes from her superior organization and support among party insiders.

Posted by: pagpag | October 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hsu's counting the dough? Whose watching the donors? Why aren't we hearing anymore about this case?

Posted by: CM1515 | October 2, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm 28, never participate or donated in any election campaign even in 2004. After closely Following both Sen. Obama B. and Sen. Hillary C. campaigns, I can honestly say that I can relate more to Sen. Obama. So for the first time in my adult life, I finally decided to make my first campaign donation - $50 - , and it was to Sen. Obama. This enthusiasms and leader is what our party , the country and my generation needs.

Posted by: baboU | October 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Now let's see how much of that she has to give back because it came from foreign nationals and crooks like Norman Hsu.

We don't need any more Clintons or the trash they attract.

Posted by: rkinneypa | October 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The press falls for this Clinton obsfucation every quarter. Each quarter begins with headlines touting how the Clinton campaign has raised a record amount of cash. And each quarter, after the reports are actually filed, there is a quiet announcement of some alleged mathematical error reducing the total below Obama. I do not believe a thing that Bill or Hillary Clinton says.

Posted by: dpack | October 2, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The much touted Clintonista machine still trails Obama in money raised just for the primaries, with about $62 million total, compared to about $75 million for Obama. Remember, she transefered $10 million from her senate campaign. For someone who has been running for 15 years for this office, we would have expected her to dominate fundraising in every quarter- the truth of the matter is she hasn't and Obama has built a much wider and stronger grass roots base which will get him elected, despite what the MSM would have us believe!

Posted by: pmasundire | October 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

For all the talk about number of donors being the "real" factor...where did that get Howard Dean?? How invested is a person in Obama's bid for presidency if all they gave was $5 ? It doesn't matter how much money you have or how many contributors...who gets their ass out the door on election day is what counts.

Posted by: patrickdherron | October 2, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

So it's not the votes that count, it's how much money you raise that gets you elected? Is that how it works?

Posted by: kogejoe | October 2, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

And so how many donors does she have? Is it just the rich ones who donate to her? Is that why five million of that is for the general election, because they already topped out for the primary? I hope her rich donors go door to door for her if she is the nominee. Will she have the ground troops to win the general election? Does she really inspire people to grassroots? These are all questions the journalists should ask, because they are important questions. If she doesn't have the ground troops then it will all be television advertising if she is the nominee.

Posted by: goldie2 | October 2, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad these big time contributors that have already maxed out their donation limits can't vote more than once. Obama still has the advantage in # of donors against Hillary, which is where it really counts.

Posted by: thegribbler1 | October 2, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company