Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Fundraising Remains Strong

By John Solomon
Hillary Clinton's fundraising team raised more money than Democratic rival Barack Obama in the final three months of 2007, staking claim to the biggest fundraiser in the presidential race for the second straight quarter.

Clinton's campaign was scheduled to tell major donors and fundraisers in a conference call late this afternoon that her campaign raised more than $24 million between October and December, hoping that news, coupled with Clinton's upset win in the New Hampshire primary, will motivate them to keep growing the campaign's war chest, according to a senior campaign aide who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Earlier in the day, Obama's campaign announced that its final 2007 quarter fundraising total was around $23.5 million, and he added another $8 million in the first eight days of January. That means both campaigns broke the $100 million fund-raising barrier in 2007, the first time that two candidates have done that in an off election year.

With more than twenty states' delegates up for grabs in the next month, both parties' presidential candidates are retooling strategies on where best to spend their money. Clinton campaign co-chairman Terry McAuliffe told the Post earlier today that Clinton had cash on hand of more than $25 million. Campaign aides were unable to immediately say how much of that money was primary money versus general election donations.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 9, 2008; 4:38 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No Cash Flow Woes for Clinton
Next: Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race

Comments

majorteddy,
you sound like the typical Hillary-hater, since you don't know about her past 35 years of working for people. She became an activist before she even graduated from Wellesley. Way back then, right out of college, she worked on children's health care. She had active programs she worked on when Bill was Gov of Arkansas (and incidentally singlehandedly got him re-elected there for his 2nd term). Hillary has worked for people, changing their lives for quite a long time, probably about 35 years.

Posted by: alidickson99 | January 11, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Come On National Press -
REPORT on his experience!

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=107493&src=109

Posted by: lilpixie303 | January 10, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Did it ever occur to you that Mrs. Clinton actually is the best candidate? Did you listen to the debates? Did you compare the records of all the candidates? This vote in New Hampshire was clearly the vote of thoughtful intelligent 'folks' who have learned about the candidates. It was no surprise to me that Mrs. Clinton would win.
I remember the really horrible 4 years of malaise that we endured while a wonderful, kind- dreaming for our futures- man led our country to put the lights out by shutting them off in Washington D.C. first. Jimmy Carter, bless him, was and still is a compassionate and very good man. He was not qualified to lead and his inexperience hurt our country, armed services and economy.
His big speeches took all of us to a place where we believed good triumphed over evil..he forgot the rest of the world. The world made a mockery of him and our country and all we had to think about while we waited in long lines for our gasoline was the hostages. I am not, and I believe others are not ready for a man with big dreams who hasn't a clue about the rest of the world, our economy and how to fix it and my soul.
I also remember an impassioned First Lady who fought for us and our health care-who represented me and my children as she is..intelligent, hard working and a doer. She, unlike so many other First Ladies took all of the mud slinging against her for trying to resolve an issue that was unpopular with all as it is so complex. She at least tried. I believe that is much more worthy of my vote than a man who votes present on the larger issues because he doesn't want to leave a footprint.

Posted by: marysiamiller | January 10, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Almost all of us enjoy Obama's rhetoric. It is a real talent. However Hillary has the ideas and the experience of trying to put them to work. Some ideas did and some didn't. That's life.
What I also admire in Hillary is her personal courage. It is unique. The biggest opposition machine attacked her when she was First Lady. If what she survived then is not admirable I don't know what is. That in itself is a qualifying and defining set of experiences for the Presidency.
So at this time Hillary gets my vote because of her ideas, experience in putting ideas to work and her experience in surviving the biggest attack machine in American history against a woman. She is articulate and will win any debate against any other candidate democratic (including Obama)or republican (McCain) at this time.

Posted by: monishadas | January 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The "good" news regarding the 100 million raised by the Clinton and Barack money machines is that it indicates our economy is still strong with what seems like a bottomless pit of discretionary cash.

Also, majorteddy erroneously implies that Hillary Clinton was not entitled to be paid while working and that she was overpaid as well. Nice assumption! I guess you work for free.

Maforteddy also implies that the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's financial activities were somehow illegal. Also wrong. After the Republicans in our government spent over 25 million of your money over a multi-year investigation, the result was zero evidence found of any wrong doing by Hillary or Bill in their private financial activities.

As far as the concept of change is concerned, most of the rhetoric is on both sides. Why would you believe one over the other. Hillary has demonstrable evidence she tried new approaches to solving problems or making improvements. She did not always succeed but only not trying is failure.

What is Obama's record of change? Lots of words (great speaker but no substance that I can see) but words are usually hollow.

Without evidence, we are left to faith. I would rather talk about what I like about my choice as a candidate than what I don't like about another. People who point to the weakness of others are usually trying to hide their own weakness.

Posted by: bdk16 | January 10, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Hi all,
Can anybody ask Barak what is he going to change. Only rhetoric , no meat.
He is in senate why he is not trying the change now. Is he wauiting till he is the president to start the dream.

Come on Give me a break
we need somebody who is strong and can fix problems. We do not need a pretty boy to be our president .
Come on get real. Vote for Hillary

Posted by: sumedha_de_silva | January 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I think that it is a win for democracy if Clinton won NH on the merits. If it was because of the tears, I find it appalling. I think there is a double standard here as in if Obama had teared up, everyone would have found him weak and unfit for the rigors of the presidency. Also, if anyone has something to cry about it - it would be Obama. His secret service detail rivals almost Bush's because of the death threats against him because of his race.

Posted by: whitehurst7004 | January 10, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand how Hillary Clinton can stake claim to 35 years of change. Until 1992 she was a high priced lawyer for the Rose Law Firm, charging hundreds of dollars per hour for her services, and incidently, overbilling for her hours at that. She spent the next 8 years defending her and Bill's financial shenanigans and Bill's sexual peccadillos. What is to lead us to believe that more years of them in the White House will lead to anything but the wrangling that occurred between 1993 and 2001 while the causes that needed their attention were neglected?

Posted by: majorteddy | January 9, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how the political process in this country would be changed, maybe even cleaned up a bit, if all donations went to a general fund to be evenly divided among candidates. Like they say in AA, maybe it's not the best idea, but remember it's our best ideas that got us where we are today.

Posted by: eidover | January 9, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company