Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Big Money
From Small Donors

It is no surprise that Hillary Clinton's media team found a way to maximize the headlines for the campaign's third quarter fundraising numbers.

What was a surprise was that the numbers reflected a shift in the way Clinton is gathering that money. She is still clearly raising plenty of money from big-dollar donors who can write $4,600 checks-- the maximum donation--that not only sustain Clinton's primary bid, but will fuel a general election effort if she becomes the nominee. But she also has finally figured out how to draw money from the grassroots.

For the first time since she launched her campaign, Clinton's money success appears to have turned much more directly on the support of small donors -- a domain that Obama, and to a lesser extent Edwards, had been dominating during the first six months of the year. She reported receiving money from 100,000 new donors this quarter -- double the number she recruited during the first three months of the campaign.

Clinton's grassroots organizer, Peter Daou, said the campaign raised $8 million online during the past three months -- " definitely our best quarter online."

How did she do it? For one, the campaign was far more aggressive pursuing donors online, borrowing several ideas from the Obama campaign. Among them -- a series of contests that offered to reward internet contributors by providing them the chance at spending time on the trail with Clinton, or the chance to watch a debate and munch on chips with her husband, the former president. The campaign also held many more low dollar events -- another strategy Obama had been employing with great success -- that drew thousands of people in to large rallies. Names of those attending were collected and added to Clinton's e-mail list.

Daou said the growth in grassroots support has "part of a continuum."

"From the Internet perspective it was a matter of, you're building trust, you're building a relationship, you're giving and sharing information, and it builds on itself," he said. "Eventually, it pays dividends."

--Matthew Mosk

By Washington Post editors  |  October 3, 2007; 11:52 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In Iowa, Thompson
Talks Social Security

Next: Romney's September Slide

Comments

Ummmm, lets see. Obama did 19 mil and 3 of that was from an Oprah party. Huh, interesting.

I donated this quarter to Hillary and I have never donated to any campaign in my life. I couldn't afford much, but I am glad to know that my little $10 was counted and it was donated because I believe in Hillary and what she will do for our great land. It was from my heart.

I live in Illinois and know what a part of the Democrat machine in Chicago Obama belongs with. The good old boys network is what we used to call it - playing poker, smoking cigars and making decisions in the hotel rooms. Hey, that was a Soprano episode as I recall. The GOP will have a field day with him if he would happen to garner the nomination.

I'm a Hillary supporter all the way.

Posted by: mel | October 4, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

pacifica1 you are an idiot. So Hillary borrowed a couple ideas from Obama who the hell cares!!! She saw something that worked and she took it made it her own and guess what she did it better thats why she won the 3rd quarter.

Also you cited that Hillary has no government management experience...umm it seems as if she has a hell of more experience than Obama...Im not saying Obama isn't great he is...but he should have waited before he made his bid....Obama has hype...Hillary has the poise confidence, intelligence we need.

Hillary is running on issues she has managed to come out of her husbands shadow and make this campaign her own...shes not running on her popularity or Bill's for that matter.

Hillary's a force to be reckoned with...don't stop her big machine train from choo choo chooing...get on board or you are bound to be left.

Republicans see her inevitable win...why cant you?

Posted by: JerniBrowne | October 3, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
The current Post-ABC poll says it all. She leads all the Presidential candidates in BOTH parties as far as popularity goes. In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: ajain31 | October 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This is why Hillary leads in the polls,

because she steals any good ideas from

all the other candidates.

From "Dinner with Barack"/"Lunch with Hillary"

to copying Edwards' healthcare plan,

to becoming anti war after everyone else did.

Hillary has no new ideas,

not even any old ideas, that are her own.

If elected, she intends to continue

copying Bush's bad behavior-

regarding the war, the unchecked power,

the scandal, partisan ways, and the secrecy.

Posted by: julieds | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

No one ever said Hilary was dumb. She saw what worked for Obama in fund raising and used it. She saw what worked for Romney in health care and used it. I just hope she doesn't see what worked for George Bush. He argues for fear mongering, secrecy and a unitary presidency.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Everything Obama does, she copies. She is damn scared of Senator Obama, because he possesses the true leadership and courage of conviction that she could only hope to have, and if she doesn't have it yet, she never will. Also, even her biographer stated that she is like Nixon in that she is very vengeful and never forgets a slight, even a perceived one, such as her husband's former senior aides all flocking to the Obama campaign. They've been met with threats that the Clintons will NOT forgive and forget. We can't have someone like that in the White House again!

FACTS: Hillary is a hawk. Even in the last debate, when Tim Russert recalled her vote to authorize war, the most important vote of her life, SHE GOT IT WRONG. He then asked WHY WE SHOULD TRUST HER JUDGMENT to be president. She gave her standard 'non-answer'... "I take responsibility for my vote."

Zbignew Brzezinski, one of the most distinguished foreign policy experts in America, recently endorsed Obama because of his good judgment. He noted how President Kennedy was advised by those around him to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yet, this young, wise president said no to them, using a naval blockade instead. He saved us from nuclear war...THAT is the good judgment Brzezinski's talking about.

Obama spoke out against this "rash, dumb ideological war of choice". He did it in 2002 and every year since then. Everything he predicted came true. He said we'd be in a quagmire that would drain our treasury and cost too many lives. He said it would destroy our moral standing in the world. All this, sadly, has happened.

The wisdom that Senator Obama has shown is what our country needs. In contrast, Senators Clinton, Biden, Edwards and Dodd ALL voted for the war and Sen. Clinton didn't even take the time to read the 90 page NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), even with 10 days to read it, before casting her vote to go to war.

To send other people's kids to war without reading it was dereliction of duty. She did not ask the hard questions before voting and feared looking weak, MAKING A POLITICAL CALCULATION.

If being first lady in the governor's mansion for 8 years and another 8 years in the White House qualifies for 'experience' to be president, then why not Laura Bush for president? How preposterous is that? This is how the Clinton Machine spins and manipulates perceptions.

Prior to being elected to the Senate in 2000, Hillary's only recent professional employment had been as a lawyer in Little Rock, Arkansas while her husband, coincidentally, was governor of that state. She represented clients who sometimes had an interest in getting to know her husband better. She has never managed anything larger than a Senate office, and while First Lady, her international activities were more in line with the ceremonial responsibilities of a Pat Nixon or Laura Bush, than with the actual interventions of Eleanor Roosevelt. In other words, she doesn't have the government management experience of a Reagan, Carter or Bill Clinton. Nor does she have the international or military experience of an Eisenhower or a Franklin Roosevelt. And that apparently makes her the best 'qualified' candidate......

Time served in Washington does not equate with good judgment.

In Obama, we have someone who will unite our country and yes, the world. The moment he is inaugurated, the healing begins.

Posted by: pacifica1 | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"How did she do it? For one... borrowing several ideas from the Obama campaign."


While I think its entirely appropriate to borrow good ideas from wherever they come, I'm still looking for evidence that the Senator from New York has any good ideas of her own.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company