Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's $40 Million Haul (And What It Means)

***************
UPDATE -- 4:15 p.m.: A Clinton campaign source just confirmed to The Fix that the New York Senator collected $20 million in the month of March, roughly half the total amount collected by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over the same time frame. Earlier in the day Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said the campaign would not release its fundraising figures until later in the month but acknowledged that her total would not match Obama's.

The Clinton source pointed out that the $20 million haul in March represented Clinton's second best fundraising month in the campaign. While Clinton's numbers mean she will likely be at a cash disadvantage over the final two months of the nomination fight, the $20 million shows that rumors of her financial demise are somewhat overblown.

*********************

Sen. Barack Obama raised better than $40 million for his presidential campaign in the month of March alone, bringing his total raised for the first three months of 2008 to a staggering $134 million.

"Today we're seeing the American people's extraordinary desire to change Washington, as tens of thousands of new contributors joined the more than a million Americans who have already taken ownership of this campaign for change," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe in a release on the numbers sent to reporters this morning. "Many of our contributors are volunteering for the campaign, making our campaign the largest grassroots army in recent political history."

Obama's campaign announced his take for the month of March just moments before a planned conference call with senior advisers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Remember what we wrote yesterday that there are VERY few coincidences in modern American politics.)

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson refused to release Clinton's specific fundraising take on the call although he did note that Obama would outraise his candidate in March as he had done for several recent months. "We will have the resources that we need to compete and be successful in the upcoming primary states," said Wolfson -- echoing the campaign's mantra in recent days. Wolfson said Clinton's fundraising figures would not be made public until the Federal Election Commission required it be done in the middle of this month.

Obama's fundraising machine continues to churn at historic levels. In March alone, 218,000 new donors contributed to Obama's campaign and a total of 442,000 people contributed to the campaign in the last month -- a reflection of the massively broad fundraising pool from which the Illinois Senator is drawing.

We have noted before that barring an Obama upset in Pennsylvania, there are only two ways that the Clinton campaign would end before Montana and South Dakota vote on June 3. The first is some sort of superdelegate stampede to Obama, which, at the moment, seems unlikely. The second is money -- that is, if Clinton can no longer financially sustain her campaign from an ad spending and payroll perspective.

Clinton has already fought back the "running out of money" storyline following the Super Tuesday votes when it was revealed that she had made a $5 million personal loan to do what the campaign needed to do on Feb. 5.

That personal loan seemed to trigger a significant outpouring of money for Clinton from the Internet -- a phenomenon explained by some close to the New York Senator's campaign as a sign that those willing to financially support her simply didn't know she needed their dollars. In today's conference call today, Wolfson insisted that Clinton's financial support on the Internet had and would continue to sustain her campaign.

There are two things to consider when it comes to understanding how money matters in terms of Clinton's future.

The first is that money is not conclusive when it comes to results. As the Clinton campaign is fond of pointing out, she was drastically outspent by Obama in Ohio and Texas and managed to win the primaries in each of those states in spite of that differential. (Obama won a convincing victory in Texas caucuses.) Wolfson pointed out this morning that Obama had outspent Clinton by a four to one margin in Pennsylvania to date but the New York Senator remains in the lead.

The second is that perception matters when it comes to money. If Clinton is perceived to be in financial peril, she becomes a much less attractive investment for donors deciding where to give their money. By the same token, if Obama looks like the nominee, he is sure to vacuum up the campaign cash of fence sitters looking for a winner.

The Clinton campaign is right that past results suggest that they do not need to raise or spend as much money as Obama to win. But, they do have to raise a minimum amount of money in order for her to stay viable. What that minimum amount is remains to be seen, but she cannot afford to have stories about outstanding debts, staff not being paid or gross differential between what she and Obama are spending on television in the remaining ten contests.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 3, 2008; 10:43 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: A Question of Temperament?
Next: FixCam: McCain's Big "Secret" Is Out

Comments

Does anyone else remember when Obama was saying that he was postive that Hillary supporters would vote for him but he did not believe that his supporters would vote for Hillary? I laughed hysterically when the gallup pol came out last week and showed that 19% of Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary and 28% of Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama. I found those numbers to be very telling and I think more people should think about those numbers. I hope that after learning everything we possibly can about both of these canidates that the superdelagates will get together and evaluate all of the election results and then make a judgement based on which canidate would be the best leader at this very important moment in our American history. We have an ecconomy that is in a very scary slide, a rising homeless rate, a rising unemployment rate, inflation rising at unprecedented rates, a war that we need to very carefully extract ourselves from in a responsible way not just quickly pulling troops out without regard to their saftey or to the stablization of the Middle East. We need someone who is a known quanity with experience not an unknown quanity who has the potential to be great and the potential to be an absolute disaster all at the same time. Yes I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. The Clintons are far from perfect but I like the devil I know. I am now only begining to learn about the skeletons in Obamas closet. Why did we not hear more about Trinity Church earlier in the campaign? Obama loves to tell people that he was a community organizer helping the less fortunate but what he does not tell you is that he was a community organizer working out of an office in the Trinity Church and the people he was helping were the almost 100% black population on Chicagos east side. This is a community full of drug users and gang bangers who go to Trinity Church on Sunday to hear there pastor tell them that white people are responsible for holding them down. People like reverend Wright are the ones who are holding back there mostly black congregations by perpetuating hatred and keeping their congregations from joining mainstream America. It is not ok to "speak black" the youth need to learn proper english they need to go to school and graduate from high school and then go on to college. The people like reverend Wright who encourage the youth to not lose their heritage should teach them to overcome their heritage instead.

Posted by: mbailiff | April 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Newsweek says that only $7 million of Hillary's $20 million fund raising figure for March is available for the current Primary contest. Her big donors provided General Election dollars to boost the numbers for March. Same thing in February, only $11.5 million out of the $34.5 million she bragged about was use able in the Primary Campaign. So, for March the comparison is really $40 million for Obama to $7 million for Hillary. In February, it was $55 million for Obama to $11.5 million for Hillary.

Posted by: jthomas | April 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone question Senator Obama's claiming to have all these new contributors every month. If you look at the contributors names on your website, not the famours one, you'll see that the same people are giving small amounts 2 or 3 times in the same day. Using the search box, put in any common last name and you can see that this is common in his campaign. So what about his claim that they attracting all these new small donors all the time when the same people are giving say $25 four separate times on the same day?????

Posted by: uskstreet | April 5, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

How much of the $20 M is available for HRC's use now and how much is from maxed out $2,300 donors so that she will have to use the money for the primary but, oh wait, she'll be gone then, won't she.

By the way, I'd like to see a female president as much as the next person, just not this woman. Come on everyone take a look, a long, hard look. I just can't support a woman simply because she's a woman. Integrity first for me!!

Posted by: betty_s13 | April 4, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

How much of the $20 M is available for HRC's use now and how much is from maxed out $2,300 donors so that she will have to use the money for the primary but, oh wait, she'll be gone then, won't she.

By the way, I'd like to see a female president as much as the next person, just not this woman. Come on everyone take a look, a long, hard look. I just can't support a woman simply because she's a woman. Integrity first for me!!

Posted by: betty_s13 | April 4, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I TRULY BELIEVE, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF LIVING IN A COUNTRY WHERE RED MEN WERE HELD CAPTIVE, BLACK MEN WERE TRADED ,SLAVED AND SOLD, WHITE MEN LIED AND EMBEZZELED MONIES,BROWN MEN WERE USED FOR CHEAP LABOR AND DENIED CITIZENSHIP , THAT WE ARE AMONGST THE WORST OF TERROIST,MORE SO THAN THE ARAB COUNTRIES. I MEAN WHAT DO WE HAVE TO HIDE EXCEPT SHEETS AN WHITE AMERICAN PRIDE , HAIL BARACK OBAMA

Posted by: rrileyelectric | April 4, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Money will buy him the democratic election but I doubt that he will win the general election. Two things: first once the battle starts between parties I predict that all you will see is the Rev. Wrights' sermons, senator Obama lieing about his not hearing it(they already have one like this) plus they added the video of his not having his hand on his heart while standing with all the other democrats listening to the pledge and our song. It also includes his wife's statement about this being the first time in her adult life that she is proud of her country. The second and big factor is the vicdictive abrassive hate and trash that the Obama fans put out about Hillary. They have all done a better job of trashing one of their own candidates than the republicans can ever do. Many of the people are upset and are thinking of voting for Ralph Nater and some will not vote at all. I have never in my life seen such hate and misstatements about another candidate in my life. Where do these people come from???? I think we all loose when we do not talk issues and just trash the other party. I think people are hoping that Obama will win, I do not think that in the end that will be the outcome. Even governor Richardson has commented that Obama does not have experience and action, not words will mean more. Obama blew it by staying in a church he didn't agree with for 20 years and I think it will be hard for many to forget that. Also this fact was not know before many of the elections that he won, if it were, I do not think he would have had the wins that he did.

Posted by: chacha1 | April 4, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is spending my hard earned money. See, I want to hire him for president. The best way to do that is to give him the means to do that. So, I give what I can, (which is about $50.00 so far) knock on doors, make phone calls on his behalf. I'm sure the big donors are kicking in, but much of the money fueling Senator Obama's effort comes from me and 1.3 million other regular folks. We are making this happen. I want him to outspend, out-strategize, and out-think Senator's Clinton and McCain so that come November we can out-source the both of them.

Posted by: drcalm | April 4, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh well it's sad how much these Toxic Kool
Aid Drinker Obamabotics Cultists and WAPO
could learn about how sleazy arrogant con
artist cheap Chicago political hack phony
Barack Hussein Obama and his crooked felon
Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko really raised
that $4o Million Dollars,by reading the
Chicago Tribune or Sun Times, and finding
out all about Tony Rezko Lavious hotel
drug parties,while his slum properties
tenants went without heat and Rezko was busy raising political campaign money for
Barack Hussein Obama,that is coming out,
during Tony Rezko Criminal Trial and you
can sure bet Barry Obama was at those
drug parties and getting all the cocaine
Obama wanted. Wise up people Obama is a
fake and fraud and tied to sleazy crooks
in Chicago and big time drug dealers.

Posted by: redheadclaudine | April 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

svreader, you post this as a reason that Clinton should be the best choice? New Hampshire and Nevada were months ago. A lot has happened since then in case you have been on another planet.


Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! What it means? It reverses Clinton's prior assertions about electability.

And reflects - I think - the general level of enthusiasm of the backers.

Pretty much ends the hope that the delegates will dare change the outcome of the nomination.

"I have more people voting for me, and more people giving me money - and you think that you can give the nomination to Hillary? Let me just email my donor list . . . "

Posted by: DonJasper | April 4, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

From the NYT --

Editorial

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times's editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards's fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands. We certainly don't buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. "Firstness" is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America's global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America's role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered -- but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama's audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can't foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton's vote for the resolution on the use of force. That's not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course -- shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government's powers have been misused -- and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America's voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won't be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.


Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "PS... Obama won TX? If mob rule wins, democracy looses... is that what you want? Were you at the precinct caucuses? He can have the caucus vote, it would never hold up as democratic. Talk about winning at all costs, he will even sacrifice democratic principles to win. Hillary won the popular in TX vote fair and square."

Yes I was, and it was all fair and square . If it was not in your caucus then it is the fault of your chairman and lack of planning. Does this mean that I favor the Texas two step. No, I don't. It's an odd way to run an election. But it was set up many years ago to help Jimmy Carter by the democratic party. It has been in effect for decades and has just not mattered till this year.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

leichtman. I was reporting the results of the exit polls, nothing more, nothing less. No matter what you think, rant on, and vote for the proven liar. Take a look at her record with education in Arkansas. Take a look at her record with health reform when she was too stupid to consult with her own leaders and turned them off to the point where her health reform was laughed off the board.
Take a look at the records of her attending pro-NAFTA meetings while she was "against" NAFTA all along. Take a look at the statements of dodging sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia, while the other side of the screen showed her being greeted by a long line of people including a little girl. "That's the way it happened" she said, while the comedian with her said the only "red phone moment was deciding where to eat next".
Take a look at all this and then vote for Senator Clinton if you wish, and then deny that it doesn't reflect on your judgement.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Quote: Do you want the Feds spending 4 times as much...."

No I want them to pay their bills which Hillary Clinton is not doing to save money because she believes that she should be the ordained president:


Quoting: "Clinton's camp has put off paying bills for months, earning campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months -- freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community -- and anyone else who will listen -- to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter."

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I think everyone is going to be sorry if he wins the Primary and the Nov. election! Black on white this time around if he wins!"

Another under-educated Clinton supporter. Which primary? They are almost over and he leads.

Posted by: wly34 | April 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton came into this campaign with the Clinton name, entire Clinton campaign machinery, and senior member of the party supporting her. She was expected to overwhelm to opposition. The campaign projected invincibility. With that in mind, consider what Sen. Obama has achieved over the last 4 months. He has raised over 200,000 millions dollar outside of the traditional party fundraising machine, won more popular votes and delegates to date. He has to outspend her to compete with her because she is the establishment candidate.
Moreover, his fundraising achievement in March is simply astounding given the negative media coverage he has received for something he did not say. Still, he must close out Senator Clinton to win the nomination.

P.S to all those supporters of Clinton and Obama who said they will for McCain if the person you are backing does not win, remember the President select Supreme Court Judges, the Attorney General and has the ability to veto legislation that might be beneficial to average Americans.

Posted by: wblair1 | April 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There's a tide in the affairs of America today, and Obama is riding high on the crest. America is voting with its pocket book. And the whole world can't wait to see a positive change. The world has often looked up to America for intellectual, economic, democratic, and cultural leadership. The events in the past 6 or so years, have crippled America's prestige in international affairs. Both the world and American consensus seemed to favour Obama in leaps. Let's give him our blessings for a fresh, new world.

Posted by: gateinstitute | April 4, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

As someone who donates to Obama's campaign each month, I can tell you that McCain needs to worry. Our donations will really start kicking in when the fight with the Republicans begins. As for those of you who say you will vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination, I hope you are on board for the war with Iraq and Iran, the draft, and more economic disaster in our country. Yeah four more years of Bush policies!

Posted by: mbpotter84 | April 4, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

My only disappointment in Obama's policies is leaving the medical needs of the country in the hands of the insurance companies that were greatly responsible for the dismal state of health care in the US, which has a very adverse effect on quality of life compared with any other developed country.
I am lucky, I moved to St Petersburg Russia and have been able to have high quality personalized treatment, a total hip replacement, for $6000 And full coverage insurance for $28 a month. Compare the long waits, high hospital infection rates, overstressed staff, and impersonal service in the US with, say, Finland or Denmark or France or where ever you look. Single payer is the only system that can fix what the "unfettered marketplace" has done to the middle class, working poor, quality of life, and hope in the US since Trickle Down Economics became the ruling policy of the land.
I sent my contribution to Obama, the first candidate that excited me enough to get involved again, and will return to the States just long enough to help any way I can to make Change a realty through a grass-roots driven sweep of both houses and the office of president. I will work against dems as well as republicans who supported the war, the give-away to the corporations and supported trade policies that have ruined the hopes and dreams of a decent secure life, with a good job for millions of Americans. The war, the economy, corporate take over the government, criminal foreign policy, corruption of the current administration and second class education systems are all going to change or the US is finished as a power. This really is the most important election is a hundred years.

Posted by: km6xz | April 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

08' Presidential Candidate


B - BUOYANT
A - ADROIT
R - REALISTIC
A - AMIABLE
C - COURAGEOUS
K - KNOWLEDGEABLE

>

O - OPTIMISTIC
B - BRAINY
A - ALLURING
M - MAGNETIC
A - ABLE


A New Class of Presidency Coming Your Way In 08' !

Posted by: curt.1 | April 4, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't someone questioning where Obama's donations are coming from? Are they all legal, he surely cannot collect that much money from the internet so where is it coming from? Make him disclose WHERE and How MUCH. I also want to know WHAT CHANGE! Change WHAT? What is in His WALLET? His wife does not sound like a person who should be a First Lady in this Great US of A.
He has friends that are crooks and you are seen as with the company you keep. He is lazy and never accomplished anything so where did the money come from to buy his house? Someone that didn't have much and buys a big expensive house which was discounted for him. I think everyone is going to be sorry if he wins the Primary and the Nov. election! Black on white this time around if he wins!

Posted by: alfredarodgers | April 4, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's $20 million is even less impressive since it comes from fundraisers - big donors. Many of these people have already maxed out their $2300.

It continues to baffle me how her fanatical supporters online never seem to translate into major online donations. I'm sure Hillary would rather you guys cut her a cheque, rather than just coming online and badmouthing Obama.

Some people say Clinton's financial mismanagement of her campaign is a bad omen for her management of the economy. What about her healthcare plan? Hillary promised all her campaign workers health insurance as part of their packages, but the premiums are more than two months in arrears.

Would the insurers pay up if a Clinton staffer got sick now? Or would it all collapse in a big mess like her other healthcare plans?

Will she tell her loyal workers, sorry, I spent your healthcare premium on advertising?

PS Nice going Rugman, you misspelled "Iraq", "Saddam", "Muslim" and even "Freedom"!

Posted by: Bud0 | April 4, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

WELL' MR.CILLIZZA, YOU CAN DO HAND;S-
SPRING;S NOW SOME-THING YOU AND OPRAH]
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR SOME-TIME,
NOW, PROVING THAT YOU DONT EVEN HAVE
TO BE AN AMERICAN; IF YOU HAVE THE
MONEY; YOU CAN DO ANY-THING, OBAMA IS
A MUSLIN' I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU AND
OPRAH; ARE BUT YOUR HEART IS BEHIND
[SADAM]I HAVE NEVER HEARD TELL, OF
ETHER ONE OF YOUR-BUNCH HAVE IN THE
GUT;S TO PUTING THE UNIFORM OF THE
U,S,A, AND FIGHTING FOR WHAT YOU CALL FREDOM. TO SPOUT ANY THING OUT
OF YOUR, CHICKEN-CHIT;; MOUTH; WHY DONT
YOU GO TO IRAK' I GUESS YOU COULD
FIND 1000;S THAT WOULD TRADE THEIR
WEAPON. FOR YOUR TYPE-WRITER..

Posted by: rugman | April 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

money is freedom

Posted by: nclwtk | April 4, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Republicans have figured out something that
you have not figured out. Everybody send him ten bucks.

Go McCain

Posted by: alrascal11 | April 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The selfish, arrogant Clintons, Shrillary & slick Willie, and their so-called political gurus devised a Shrillary primary strategy based on the "inevitability" of her winning the nomination by Super-Tuesday.

Therefore, the entire Shrillary campaign was based on this stategy; in other words, Obama and the rest of the primary candidates would have been history by Super-Tuesday. Moreover, the expenditure of their campaign war chest was based on this strategy, with a substantial share of their war chest spent by Super-Tuesday.

The same so-called political geniuses never counted on Obama igniting a powerful political movement before it was too late, and he decisively won 11 primaries in a row. Significantly, the upstart Obama planned for a long run in the primaries and figured out how to use high-tech in raisng money, i.e., the INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now the Clintons and their gurus are frantically trying to stay in the race, and stooping to smear tactics in a feeble attempt to oust Obama.

Here you have a candidate, Shrillary, who professes to be the strongest Demo candidate, with her questionable 35-years of experienc, but she cannot even manage her campaign funds purdently.

And she wants to manage the entire multi-billion federal budget as Prez? Give us a break. GO OBAMA GO. Forrest Gerard

Posted by: fgerard | April 4, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't change the facts- fact, Hillary stands up while Obama clams up. www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

Posted by: darlamc | April 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

LeftWithNoChoice said,

"I doubt even the DNC likes Obama raising this kind of money. This kind of grassroots power has got to worry them."
------------

This is the take away message. Obama has raised this money, largely, through grassroots efforts. His campaign is supported by plain folks, like you and me, not by big corporations and lobbyists. There's also a generational dynamic at play here that we shouldn't lose sight of. Obama's campaign represents a shift in the power dynamics in Washington. Whether he'll be ultimately be successful or not does remain to be seen. But, he has thus far proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with, primarily due to his ability to motivate grassroots financial and political support.

Posted by: CarolBG | April 4, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

amazing how much $$$ is used for these campaigns....wasted much of it.


Also, anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

Posted by: elsylee28 | April 4, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

obama is never called on regarding his lies.he said the Kennedy's helped his
gamily financially to come to america from kenya.he said they personally helped him...a lie he was over here a year before the kennedy's got invloved with bringing blacks over from kenya...lies...lies...lies.
judgegment,ayrs,rev wright,renko......but his cult followers are believers and give money.....

Posted by: miller.teresa | April 4, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson refused to release Clinton's specific fundraising take on the call although he did note that Obama would outraise his candidate in March as he had done for several recent months.

"We will have the resources that we need to pay me and my pathetic loser colleagues, who organized and ran this half-as sed campaign. But then again, don't criticize us, our candidate lies all the time, just like me!!!"

Posted by: queenskid | April 4, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson refused to release Clinton's specific fundraising take on the call although he did note that Obama would outraise his candidate in March as he had done for several recent months.

"We will have the resources that we need to pay me and my pathetic loser colleagues, who organized and ran this half-as sed campaign. But then again, don't criticize us, our candidate lies all the time, just like me!!!"

Posted by: queenskid | April 4, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The HRC campaign at least paid off her past due employee health insurance bills. That was way too embarrassing for her to leave go any longer. But many old bills remain unpaid. She still owes Cal State Northridge over $13,000 from a campaign event there in January during the run up to the super Tuesday California primary.

Posted by: snodman | April 4, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"By the way, this Democrat will vote for McCain over Obama any day."

Sockpuppet alert!!!

Posted by: JEP7 | April 4, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

By the way, this Democrat will vote for McCain over Obama any day. One is a hero. Obama was selling drugs on the streets while McCain was being beaten in Vietnam!

Posted by: afellow1 | April 4, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

By the way, this Democrat will vote for McCain over Obama any day. One is a hero. Obama was selling drugs on the streets while McCain was being beaten in Vietnam!

Posted by: afellow1 | April 4, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone give money to an unknown candidate such as Obama. He has absolutely no track record in the state or U.S. Senate, but he can talk. A lot of horrible leaders in the world were good talkers. When this much money is going into a campaign it says two things: first, someone wants something (perhaps his indicted friend) or second, the Republicans see him as an easy target to beat in the fall. Simply, Obama is a menace and a very fearful one at that. Beware!

Posted by: afellow1 | April 4, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Money does not guarantee success at the polls. However, money certainly helps the cause.

Money gives the candidate and his/her spouse the time to campaign; small bank accounts force candidates to spend precious time at fund raisers, rather than with voters.

Money makes extensive grassroots operations possible (volunteer recruitment and training, voter registration, get the vote out operations, message outreach, etc.). Such efforts require multiple campaign offices per state--expensive operations to say the least.

No doubt, Obama's fund-raising wizardry and extraordinary resource management are major factors in his success.

But make no mistake, Obama's success goes beyond great resource management. Obama's campaign is very well managed. His camp created an identity people could relate to; his camp has effectively handled the most controversial and contentious of issues head on; his camp retains control and order in the house--his campaign staff exercises extraordinary discipline and cooperation. Overall, his campaign team is pretty remarkable.

Posted by: txgall | April 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

hillary supporters are not just saying if she doesn't get the nominee they will vote for mc cain....we are truthful. i have been and have voted democrat for years now.i am a typical middle age "white" female. but if obama wins this nominee i will and I know alot of others that will do what they say and not vote for obama.its not we will cool down....wake up, hillary supporters are telling the truth. mccain would be far better than obama. i will also leave the democrat party. too many new members that are way too liberal for me. obama is way to liberal and DOES NOT tell the truth...plus the good ole boys in the democrat party are
getting too old and not in touch with reality.

Posted by: miller.teresa | April 4, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I find velostrummer's comments very offensive. its people like you that makes this world a bad place.how dare you make such nasty comments.In my opinion the obama supporters are rude and mean. i think the issue is more than raising 40 million, he made raised 55 mil in february which is a shorter month, so I would say his raising money for his campaign is down,but I realize he is the saints of all saints.wholly than god. noone can say anything against him or you'll be called a racist.i can't wait to see how he detroys this country and what all you supporters will be saying, you bought into bush now this man.wake up america your choices are ruining our country..take a look at this website.he says one thing to the public and another things in private.wake up.....
electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

Posted by: miller.teresa | April 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Putting this in its proper perspective...How elementary is it to base the "hiring" of the most important job in this country (which by the way, does not list a "must-have" requirement for fundraising experience) on the amount of money that someone has raised. It's been established that he's a great motivational speaker, but what has he done besides talk?? What can he bring to the table, besides saying grace? I see the significance in the timing of the news analysis that a growing number of the recent generations of our students aren't graduating, which is the same growing number that we have entrusted to make an intelligent vote. Based on this analogy, I just don't believe that my 10 year-old daughter who sold the most Girl Scout cookies in our area should be Troop Leader. I just don't think she's ready.

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | April 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Oprah just bought herself a president. Hope he doesn't turn out to be another Dr. Phil or the plagaristic author.

Posted by: consignjp | April 4, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Yes there is no doubt about it - we get the best candidates that money can buy.

Posted by: consignjp | April 4, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

What does it mean? You might consider adding this to your list, Chris: it means that there are over a million people (like me) all across this nation who are already so invested in Barack Obama's campaign that we will work to protect that investment in the future not only with an unprecedented and ongoing donation stream - what's a million times $2,300? (and the number of donors just keeps growing) - but also with boots on the ground whenever needed.

Just loving springtime walks, I'm already held discussion groups the last couple of weeks and have signed up to canvas my whole subdivision (and we don't vote till May). This is bottom-up politics, Chris, in a way that I've not seen before (in all my 59 years) and I'm LOVIN' it! It's rewriting the book, hon. Watch and learn!

Posted by: miraclestudies | April 4, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

harlemboy: While I wouldn't totally disregard the GE poll numbers, at this early date they don't mean a whole lot. Why? Because they're undoubtedly skewed by the hard feelings of Clinton supporters, who haven't had the opportunity to cool off. That's why it's critical to get this mess resolved as soon as possible and get everyone back under the big tent.

Telling a pollster that you'll vote for McCain is a no-cost way to act out. It's a very different matter when you're thinking it over in October, after all of the ghouls and zombies have come pouring out of the GOP caves to threaten us with 4 more years of destructive policies.

Posted by: zoot1 | April 4, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

blarg, you do not know rich people then if yo think that they donate more $$. Liberals are not known to be generous, and there are several reports about it in the news. Ask George Will..

Posted by: leisa23 | April 4, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

PS... Obama won TX? If mob rule wins, democracy looses... is that what you want? Were you at the precinct caucuses? He can have the caucus vote, it would never hold up as democratic. Talk about winning at all costs, he will even sacrifice democratic principles to win. Hillary won the popular in TX vote fair and square.

Posted by: leisa23 | April 4, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Hello... Saturation can become sickening... for a man that says too much money is a bad thing, he sure does not seem to mind using it. Look at how much money he has given to the super delegates compared to Clinton...
I HOPE that people will start looking at facts, figures and actions before they believe words... best of luck to you all.

Posted by: leisa23 | April 4, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Where did her huge war chest go? Well, she was so sure that the nimination would be a cake walk that she spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave---staying at the Ritz and only having the best of everything. Now she can't pay her bills or her staff's healthcare premiums. Wonder how she would run the country??

Posted by: clsvt | April 3, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

wly34: I usually type on a pda, sorry if my typing doesn't measure up to your Obama standards, obviously another cheap shot by you to show your superiority.

You knew exactly what you were doing when you posted that polls show HC voters are uneducated. Again it is exactly that type of arrogance and superiority that have the HC supporters totally fed up with your supposedly uplfiting campaign. It has absolutely nothing to do with issues or policy differences its just another in a long line of cheap shots. Personally I see it yor's as an elitist campaign that shares some of the elements of W's philosophy of our way or the highway. Perhaps that is why Sen Obama is turning off blue collar voters in Scranton, Gary and Youngstown places your campaign has done extremely poorly. In fact one of your supporters actually used that totally arrogant message here yesterday, leave the Dems Party doesn't need the HC supporters, clever. Many of us in the HC campaign have been involved in and run Democratic campaigns for 20-30 years some of us at very high levels in the party, but yet we are treated by our opponents as "scum and traitors" and told we are nothing but a bunch of uneducated country bumpkins that just fell off the turnip truck who can't possibly be smart enough to appreciate the attraction of your candidate. Many of us have read his books, read his policy positions and attended his speeches(I traveled to Austin UT to find out what his alure was and kept back sorely disappointed.)

Last night HC debated Jim Cramer on Mad Money about hedge funds, the sovereign funds,Carry Trade, and Bear Sterns bailout. You see many of us follow economics and markets were impressed with the breath and debth of her understanding of these complex issues, and don't just gaga when we hear the word Change.

HC supporters are uneducated, right. Tell that to my rabbi, the neurosurgeon,investment bankers, lawyers and accountants at my neighborhood precinct caucus last month supporting HC and willing to take their weekend to attend our Distrit Convention they are nothing but uneducated HC supporters.

I have read your post quite carefully and understand exactly what you were getting at by telling other bloggers that the polling shows that the HC voters are uneducated. We understand, we get it you want to run an elitist superiority campaign that puts down 13 million HC supporters, white collar and blue collar.
See how far that strategy gets you IF your candidate outmuscles his way to the nomination. HC supporters are already fed up with constantly being maligned and denigrated. Keep it up with such post and you will lose the entire 13 million of us. Lets see how far that sense of arrogance gets you. My guess, not very far.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

baa baa, the same way God used Pharoh to finance Josephs dream , it will be your money that finances Baracks dream, then he will sit back puff a cigarette , bowl a strike and it will be GODD DAMNN WRIGHT! from P>riley as whitegirl

Posted by: rrileyelectric | April 3, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

baa baa, the same way God used Pharoh to finance Josephs dream , it will be your money that finances Baracks dream, then he will sit back puff a cigarette , bowl a strike and it will be GODD DAMNN WRIGHT!

Posted by: rrileyelectric | April 3, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Nubby sees it clearly. Obama's appeal to actual Americans, the kind who have jobs and actually care enough about their country to throw $100 at a candidate, is not just going to work wonders for the DNC. The one good thing Bush has done for this country is convince us that we can't afford to let the gold brickers and lobbyists treat DC as their litter box anymore.

It's going to open a lot of eyes to see how much better this "inexperienced" President Obama is going to be, compared to the bloated bumblers and corrupt incompetants in there now!

Posted by: gerold.firl | April 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Come on people, $40 million? Look at the other months! CNN just reported that over 1.4 million people contributed to Obama, and the average investment is around $96 bucks. I don't think people in DC even know what a real Grass Roots wave looks like anymore....that kind of fundraising would do wonders for the DNC. Don't let cynicism get in the way of the obvious-Obama is the peoples candidate!

Posted by: nubond | April 3, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to add my Rx's for February was over $700.00 and I paid less than $25.00, this does not include my Oxygen machine at home and the Tanks I use whenever I go out. My speed buggy [Battery Powered Wheelchair] has a built in place in back where I can put the tanks , for which I pay nothing, and they bill something around $400.00 a month, but accept what Medicare and Medicaid pays.

Posted by: lylepink | April 3, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

And, leightman, with all of that education, you should learn how to punctuate.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, you are hilarious. I don't care how educated you and your wife claim to be, that doesn't change the exit polls. That's what they say, not me. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

wly34 I have a JD and my wife 2 masters;how about you turkey have you made it out of high school yet?
'living proof that the Clinton supporters are the least educated as the exit polls show.'

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "He cannot. Supers will decide. If Hillary
ends the primaries with more votes (sorry,
NotGonnaQuit... ;-), Obama's "will-of-people"
argument is over.

Hillary Clinton won't even be in the race for the super delegates to decide. The upcoming Clinton fraud trial will take care of that.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The health care issue is something I KNOW just a tad about. These past few months I cannot even think most of you would have any idea of the cost involved when a serious illness is suspected and the amount of tests involved. The cost of all the tests I have been through is staggering. A PET-scan and CT-scan are the most expensive ones, but when you figure in all the X-Rays, Breathing tests, Stress tests, Blood tests, and other tests I can't think of off hand,and so many Dr.s are involved with reading/evaluating them. I have both Medicare and Medicaid and I pay nothing out of pocket. My covered Rx's are covered as well with my cost a little over $3.00 for a 30 day supply. This is what most of us think "Single payer" is about and should be available to everyone.

Posted by: lylepink | April 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

This message has been brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | April 3, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me or do the Clinton's remind you of Mugabe. I mean, they had an election in Zimbabwe that he lost, but rather than just go, he is wrecking the entire country, "fighting to the last man", demanding a revote, even claiming some region where some of his mythical supporters are was unfairly excluded or undercounted. I'd bet he thinks he's Rocky Balboa, too.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 3, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"In today's conference call today"

I think accuracy needs to be prioritized more at the Post, and speed less. I'm seeing more and more basic errors on this site.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | April 3, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Dream on straighmedia. Learn to read. Oh I forgot, living proof that the Clinton supporters are the least educated as the exit polls show.

All this is moot when the democratic party forces her out when the Clinton fraud trial in California starts. She will be one of the witnesses along with her Hollywood supporters. Hilarious. But the Clinton's have lied under oath before.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"straighmedia, funny that Obama wound up with more TX delegates than Hillary, even when Hillary won the popular vote. Why? Because Hill's people did not figure out the Texas Two-Step until late in the game while Obama's folks studied and dissected the process a year ahead the more arcane rules of TX electioneering. That is called "due diligence" in legal circles."

Ain't it the truth. Hillary claimed such surprise to learn of the Texas two step. It existed in both of her husband's elections. But she is so "experienced". Yeah right.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Here is my personal voting rule. My only one. NEVER vote for a candidate that has endorsements from both The New Black Panther Party, and Ludacris. Just something to think about - http://nationalsquib.com/index.php/barack-obama-ludacris/

Posted by: marcusn1 | April 3, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

since you Libs have such trouble thinking for yourselves, here is a new name you can call me. simply highlight the text, hit CTRL-C then go down to the entry box and hit CTRL-V. but as a member of the drindl pack of jackals, I am sure this is one skill you need no instruction to accomplish.


"Zouk is a loony moonbat Lib."

don't worry about the meaning of the words, hillary can alter those meanings for you later.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

trying to speak Latin will not eliminate the 'simple simon' moniker you richly deserve.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Upon review, I retract the pejorative 'king of jackals' and instead submit a proposal that you henceforth be referred to as 'Lunus Chiroptologist'. One who studies moonbats.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza...you are slow dude.

A Clinton campaign source places Hillary's March 2008 fundraising haul at $20 million. There was no discussion as how much the dollar split between primary and general election funding.

Usually about one-quarter of Hillary's funds raised are in the general election category. So Hillary actually raised $15 million for the primary in which $9 million has to go to past debts which means Hillary's April 1st cash-in-hand to spend going forward was about $6 million.

Obama raised $40 million in which 10% goes into the general election fund which means Obama raised $36 million for the primaries. Obama had less than a million in debt on March 1st means Obama has $35 million cash-in-hand to spend going forward.

By the end of April Hillary will probably raise total $10 to %15 million!

Hillary is plan is simple. Stay in the race long enough to pay down all her debt and loans, then she will look for the campaign exit door after May 6th.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 3, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

King of jackals, thanks for your input. I will give it the consideration it deserves.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I congratulate you on your willingness to challenge your own preconceived notions, biases and misperceptions.


Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 04:47 PM

Actually, since there is little known about Obama, a preconcieved notion is not possible. a bias, I presume, is anything that is not extreme left and what you call a misperception seems to be perceptive enough to me.

Perhaps you should consider your own advise before doleing it out to others.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

straighmedia, funny that Obama wound up with more TX delegates than Hillary, even when Hillary won the popular vote. Why? Because Hill's people did not figure out the Texas Two-Step until late in the game while Obama's folks studied and dissected the process a year ahead the more arcane rules of TX electioneering. That is called "due diligence" in legal circles.

Posted by: meldupree | April 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

with that logic meldubree we would have Pres. howard Dean, John Kerry, John Connally and Phil Graham all prolific fund raisers.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"And here I thought all along it was shaped by leftist professors, hatemongering preachers, dreamy-eyed acolytes, a yen for raising taxes, and an urgent need to shake hands with dictators."


Its good of you to keep an open mind, regarding how much you don't know, or are mistaken about.

I congratulate you on your willingness to challenge your own preconceived notions, biases and misperceptions.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

brigittpj, yeah Obama's campaign took in $15M less than last month. According to sources quoted by WaPO, so did Hillary. Now if you were a CEO of a company or organization (profit or non-profit, your choice), would you pick the person who raised $40M or the person who raised $20M. You make the call. . .

And Hillary has more debt in her campaign than Obama ($8.7M versus $625K, respectively). Who is the better manager of funds?

The numbers make it a no-brainer.

Posted by: meldupree | April 3, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Apparently there's more to a certain candidate than meets the eye.

The teaser for an upcoming episode of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel:


"As Senator Barack Obama continues his campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, his every move is scrutinized in detail. To truly understand this rising political star... it's essential to understand the importance of basketball in shaping his identity."


Huh. And here I thought all along it was shaped by leftist professors, hatemongering preachers, dreamy-eyed acolytes, a yen for raising taxes, and an urgent need to shake hands with dictators.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6270

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

what drives the Obama supporters nuts is that HC has actually been a bipartisan Senator sponsoring tricare to reserves and expansion of rural healthcare, with Lindsy Gramm and worked with McCain on immigration reform and Hatch for stem cell research. Its one thing mark to call yourself bipartisan HC has actually been there. Againn her reaching out to Republicans has upset the Obama supporters who claim they want more bipartisanship but when they see it they scream traitor.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Mark - do you really think the Libs want to compare issues, facts and figures. that is surely a losing proposition for them. Better to stick with lies, promises, wild stories, attacks, smears and don't forget hope.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

-- Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas --

-


Golly. That would even matter, if Obama
could reach 2025.

He cannot. Supers will decide. If Hillary
ends the primaries with more votes (sorry,
NotGonnaQuit... ;-), Obama's "will-of-people"
argument is over.

Supers will slide to her in that event -
more votes / tougher fall candidate / no Wright
albatross / Obama on her undercard / unity /
party set up for 16 years


Meanwhile, Obama did not "win Texas". He lost.
This is what happens, when you receive fewer votes...

-

Posted by: straightmedia | April 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I think JEP makes a very valid point regarding the different level and kind of experience between Obama, Hillary, and McCain. McCain and Hillary dropped into DC with golden parachutes, rather than working their way up from the grass roots. Obama is a real person, who just happens to be a brilliant political leader. HRC and McCain are manufactured political products. The donors rolls reflect that reality.

Posted by: gerold.firl | April 3, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I did not mean to sleight HRC.

Please go to

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

and type in "Clinton". She has a fine record for a second term junior.

But again, compare to "McCain".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

actually mark the sun New York Times did a detailed front page story a month ago having spoken to many of the Senators who have endorsed Sen Obama and who concluded that Sen Obama's accomplishments were very thin and nothing to write home about. I point to Sen Robt Byrd, the dean of the Senate's comparitive description of HC's time and expertise in the US Senate where he concluded that her service and leadership in the US Senate was extraordinary. I am sure that you can find a link to that front page analysis

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JEP7 -

Please go to

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Type in "Obama".

Read about his Senate record. It is good for a first term junior.

Then go back and type in "McCain".

Read about his Senate record. Look at how much legislation he as passed on his own. Then call up the bills he has cosponsored.
Notice how many were actually cosponsored with Ds.

If you want a working American government where the extremes of ideology get stifled but where something useful actually gets done, you might want to reconsider the guy who has cosponsored bills across the aisle.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

jellybean1, sounds like Hillary needs a plumber (oh I forgot, she might stiff the plumber, too!) Drip, drip, drip. . .

OBAMA as President on 20 January 2009. I'll be there!

Posted by: meldupree | April 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

JEP7

Your assessment of their experience couldn't be more defferential to Obama in its classic reference to Obama having been "places they only read about."
This is reverse racism.

It's fair to say that Clinton and McCain have more Washington experience, and whether you like it or not, when you go to Washington you have to learn the game before you can possibly know who to change it.

Not a great attempt at making a point. Instead you have come off like most Obama supporters on this blog: disdainfull of others and factually bankrupt..

Posted by: vammap | April 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

4% points and 101,000 votes according to YOUR spin is a narrow margin. "Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in the state's primary March 4,"
Perhaps your campaign's incessant desire to discuss our month old story is meant to distract us from upcoming elections in Pa, W Va, Ky and Puerto Rico where you know that you are likely to lose substantially even after outspending HC by 3X1, whoppi what a great success story.
Don't understand this absolutely fanatical obsession here for a Texas vote that was split. You lost the direct vote by 4% and won a caucus by spitting and misinformational robo calls by a handfull of delegates. SO WHAT!

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

JEP - you can shrike that nonsense to the high heavens. No one is going to swallow that, not even a clinton intern.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

My last comment before I depart. I promise...

The Hillary/Mccain "experience R us" mantra
has been challenged today by a very solid line of reasoning.

Obama started at the local level, went to the state level, then ontoo the national level, with over 4,000 parliamentary debates and hundreds of sponsored bills along the way.

McCain started at the top, using his wife's family money to get elected to the house as a carpetbagger Republican in Arizona (check how long he lived there before he ran)then using even more of it to get to the Senate.

Hillary went directly top the senate, and anyone who denies it was on Bill's coattails is pretending.

So it is quite safe to say that, in terms of multi-level and comprehensive experience as a lawmaker, Obama has them both out-experienced, hands down. He's been places they can only read about.

If you think only DC parliamentary experience equals "experience" you 've been eating too many cocktail weenies.

Obama is by far the most experienced of the three, by any measure but partisan opinion and campaign spin.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

GREAT THOUGHTS OF RONALD REAGAN

"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan (Governor of California), quoted in the Sacramento Bee, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park, March 3, 1966

"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." --Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980

"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." --Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965

"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers." --President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." --Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts." --Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)

"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders." --California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966

"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet." --Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964

DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON BUSH!

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

straightmedia, read it and weep.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.


Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.

Texas Democrats held both a presidential primary and caucus. Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in the state's primary March 4, earning her 65 national convention delegates to Obama's 61.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I am a yankees fan
i never told anyone to lie
I did not share cigars with that woman
that girl at the Mayflower is my cousin
I don't know where those FBI files came from
I didn't fire those travel office workers
I got lucky on futures trading
I have white house experience
I brought peace to Ireland
that money in the freezer is from cookie sales

Just too easy

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

ANNOUNCING THE JACKSMITH1 BOOK TOUR!

Proving once again that he doesn't know his cousin, Jack S---, Mr. Smith is re-posting the 1 millionth copy of his one-page book, titled "I'm an Idiot, You Might Be."

Mr. Smith has been hard at work for the last year on his eagerly anticipated sequel, a BRAND NEW multi-paragraph insult, expected soon. Don't miss it!

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Jack, you got on before me!

In talking about numbers here's an interesting analysis of Obama's weakness as a nominee in November:

There's no way to discount Obama's $40M haul in March, except to say that it provides very little indication where these donations are coming from. Because we already know that Republicans have played a huge role in Obama's caucus victories, there is nothing to say that there isn't the same concerted effort by Republicans to pad his coffers.

Obama has made no secret of building a new kind of coalition which includes disenchanted Republicans, but one would have to be pretty naïve to think that Obama's coalition doesn't also include a hefty number of Republicans hoping that he wins and runs against McCain, not Hillary.

The wisdom of this thinking is verified by recent polls that show Hillary winning over McCain, in November, not Obama. Hillary is not a candidate Republicans would want to boost by giving campaign dollars to, not just because of the Clinton-hate-on, but because she will be the tougher opponent in November.

The other not-so-far fetched numbers issue was brought up by Talking Points Memo. Understanding what the voting demographics will be in a national election as compared to the primaries is important in figuring out which candidate will have, not necessarily more bucks, but a better chance of winning in November. The two are mutually exclusive.

With caucuses removed from the measurement [in order] "to control the distorting effect there may be from this different method of holding the contest, "it was determined that 'racially polarized voting increases with the size of the black population in a given state. That's pretty elementary. It means in states like Louisiana and Mississippi, black voting is disproportionately higher, thus white voting for Obama appears to be much less in comparison.

Because his wins in states with a large black population are primary wins, not the general election, they are not key indicators, because those are GOP states which are most always in the red column. That "means that in most cases the percentage of the black electorate is roughly double [in a primary] than what it is in the general election."

There are three factors which are important in determining whether Obama's lead is concrete enough to become the President in November:

1. Caucuses are not a reliable measurement of an outcome, this year more than ever before, because his campaign is composed of a new untested coalition of voters, many of whom voted intentionally to keep the race going, to vote against Hillary, or to simply become part of the wave. How many of them will vote the same in November? That's a big if.
2. Since the black vote alone can not garner a victory in November, how many cross over Republicans will continue to vote for Obama and how many moderate Democrats will become McCain Democrats?

3. There are a lot of holes in Obama's coalition that even $40M can't erase. Despite spending three to one in PA, though he is getting closer he still hasn't shown he can pull it out. That's the standard he has to meet in PA to fortify his relevance in a campaign where he has not been able to pull ahead in traditional blue states with larger populations that include the traditional Democratic base, other than Black Americans.

Posted by: vammap | April 3, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

why republicans lie about stuff that doesn't even matter.

Like:

I dodged snipers
I invented the internet
I am a war hero
my parents met at a peace march
experience doesn't matter
I listened for 20 years but didn't hear

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

and the truth is, once you really look into his record, he was never what he seemed like.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 03:39 PM

so you admit that you don't consider any facts before shooting off your foul mouth?

you see, we all already knew that, but it is good you are becoming self-aware, through all the hate.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

This looks like a case of your adversaries bringing a spitball to a gunfight.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

jep7 I too was an Edwards contributor. Has HC caught up in the $10-$100 contributions, I never ever suggested that. But I have daily checked their contribution meter and seen a 5 fold increase in their small contributions which started out woefully small in january. that was my point that you insist on twisting to fit your now mesianic love of Sen Obama. She is doing considerably better with her own small contributors, since Jan and I am sure the facts bear that out. Catching up was a reference to her own base of contributors which is about 30% smaller and not catching up to the larger Obama base or $40 million. I am sure you can slam that comment as well if it gets you going, but is a total waste of my time.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

drindl's confusion about self and other persists. all those wicked thoughts have perpetrated a fog of confusion on the stilted brain of the moonbat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

KOZ,

I will say this in small syllables so you can make sense of this:

Where is your Mommy? Is she coming back?

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

-- and she LOST in Texas --

-


Actual, real TX election / source CNN.com -

Clinton
1,459,814

Obama
1,358,785

Vocal-minority-dominated TX Caucus

Obama
23,918

Clinton
18,620

--


Anyone who can't add these up, let me know...


;-)


Hint: Obama received fewer votes.
Darn those facts!


-

Posted by: straightmedia | April 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Is Proud a KOZ sockpuppet? Shades of 2006!'

they share the same 'brain'

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

'koz, drindl has consistently said she would vote for Mccain over Hillary, going back to last year.'

nope, total lie. what i don't understand is why republicans lie about stuff that doesn't even matter. however the truth is, I USED to respect McCain. But that was before he flipflopped on every possible issue and became nothing but a mindless tool of the neocons.

and the truth is, once you really look into his record, he was never what he seemed like.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Is Proud a KOZ sockpuppet? Shades of 2006!

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

another arrogant Obama supporter who knows everything with certainty. Apparently whatever is best for the Obama campaign is best for the state party who weren't too thrilled with the caucus chaos. Buy hey you are an Obama supporter you know everyone in the party and everything about state politics who are we peons, like our next speaker of the house, to argue with you.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Leightman,
OK, here's some cuttin' and pastin'.

...your naive, but refreshingly hopeful "I believe that HC is finally catching up in the $10-$50 contributions" flies in the face of this simple fact, reported by our own intrepid host in this very article..
"In March alone, 218,000 new donors contributed to Obama's campaign"

Can you find me any of Hlllary's numbers (no,not $ totals) that can point to anywhere near those numbers for NEW contributors?

And do you somehow suppose those were all $1000 doners? That would be billions, so simple logic dictates many of these, probably the vast majority, were small donations.

I'm not trying to embarrass you here, but your logic is skewed by at least a hundred thousand head, maybe 200,000. I would almost bet Hillary may have had 20,000 NEW donors, which itself is historically phenomenal, but not hen compared to Obama's conscience-shattering totals...

Seriously, How can Hillary be catching up in small donations with these kinds of overwhelming numbers for Obama, your argument is sadly desperate.

Some of you know me from past eras, and know I was an Edwards supporter, who was commited to supporing whichever Dem won the process, so I am no cult Obama supporter. But I'm also practical enough to see the obvious, and like I said, believing a proven falsehood is delusional, and it is a proven falsehood that Hillary is catching Obama in small-dollar donations.

Or don't these numbers make sense to you? If not, you need to reconsider with an open mind, because the difference is not just big, it is STAGGERING! You are literally hoping against hope here.

And as for "dollars never won a race," go tell that to the Bushes.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP wrote:

According to ripper, the consequences of surrender to AlQaeda and handing them a victory are the same as defeating them and sending a message of our committment to our allies around the world.

Wow! Maybe you should go to work with Gen Petreaus and offer him some of your brilliant advice on how to achieve the best long term outcome in Iraq.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has become incontestable. THAT is the consequence of our efforts and the results of the surge, along with the political reconciliation and achievement of benchmarks. To state that the consequences of our premature withdrawl woudl be the same as our continued support of stability in the region is ludicrous.

-----------------------------------------

I'll let you and Sen. McCain mistake Shiitte extremists for al Qaeda. I suppose you also wage war on your boxer shorts.

As for your "incontestable" reduction in violence, maybe you missed that thing about Basra and the fact that American casualties have been climbing the past several months. All of which shows that the American occupation is only delaying the bloodbath to come when American forces leave and the retribution of the Shiites will hurl Iraq into the orbit of Iran.

Of course, YOUR expertise is valued about as much as George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, dick "Greeted with Flowers" Cheney and Donald "What? Me Worry" Rumsfeld.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

koz, drindl has consistently said she would vote for Mccain over Hillary, going back to last year. Back when a Hillary victory was all but certain, drindl had no candidate of preference, except Al Gore. Now she's latched onto Obama out of opportunism more than principle. With friends like her, Obama doesn't need any enemies.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I know exactly who he is and his statement doesn't make any difference. I have talked to my state representatives and they say, Sorry, it ain't going to change any time soon. The legislature hasn't a thing to do with it.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

poor zouk. can't get a job, doesn't havy any friends, has no life at all except to sit on this blog from 12 to 7 every single day and dream about me.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

It will all be moot when this trial starts, probably in May. Clinton's own party will force her out in disgrace.

Quote: "As Hillary Clinton's belief in the inevitability of her 2008 ascension to the Oval Office is being shattered by the voters, the landmark civil fraud suit against Bill Clinton, with Hillary as a material witness, is proceeding to discovery and trial in California this Spring."

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

wly if you are from Texas you obviously know who Silvester Turner is, an African Amer. Houston State Rep and Obama delegate who is running for speaker of the house. I believe him over you when he demeaned the 2 step caucus in a Houston Chronicle interview on March 5, and vowed to end it going forward. My resolution at my pct caucus to end the 2 step process was seconded by an Obama law student who agreed that our system is undemocratic and violates the 4th amendment and was approved by unanimous vote; an Obama supporter's speech to our pct not mine. It will not exist in our next election, it was universally condemned by all but the most extreme partisans at least in Harris County one of the largest population masses in the country. For this election it is what it is but it will not exist going forward.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

koz, I sure do remember. drindl was the first to go jackal on McCain, and then the rest followed suit...even the vaunted "independents". Their objectivity has now gone out the door thanks to the Grand Poobah of Hope, aka gutterball.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The lie John McCain is telling about a link between al-queda and Iran:

"This isn't the first time Zawahiri has criticized Iran, either. In a videotape released in December, he said that "Iran has stabbed the Muslim Ummah [nation] in the back" during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

"It caused itself and the Shiites following it a historic disgrace. The signs of this stab will remain vivid in the Muslims' memory for a very long time. The strange paradox to which I would like to draw attention is the fact that Iran permitted the Crusader troops to enter Iraq, recognized the agent government there, and pushed its militias to participate in this government's army, security services, and police force."

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"she was drastically outspent by Obama in Ohio and Texas and managed to win the primaries in each of those states in spite of that differential."" --

Really, I saw more Clinton commercials than I did Obama commercials in Texas, and she LOST in Texas. Obama took the most delegates. Sorry.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

-- The first is that money is not conclusive when it comes to results. As the Clinton campaign is fond of pointing out, she was drastically outspent by Obama in Ohio and Texas and managed to win the primaries in each of those states in spite of that differential. --

-


That's right. 1 creative 3 AM ad, trumps
10 Obama "I opposed NAFTA (not really)"
ads...

And you have free media. You work the
local news geeks when you come into town.
They show up and they are easy.

And it comes down to message resonance.
Huckabee proved that early, Obama showed
it early, Hillary has been doing it lately on the
readiness question and also the Known Fighter
aspect. I think working-class Dems are
responding to that.

-- By the same token, if Obama looks like the nominee, he is sure to vacuum up the campaign cash of fence sitters looking for a winner. --

Like Big Oil bundlers of "individual"
contributions...

I think Wolfson is right for now. Most
of the big-check staffers will take an
IOU, and the funds will be there to
keep going / compete. All this Quit
Now garbage hardens her supporters,
and I expect money comes in right off
of that.

Win PA in double-digits - with exit
polling showing Caucasians leaving
Tent Obama - her money goes up,
his starts falling. I'll bet it did already,
after his toxic relationship with Rev.
Wright was exposed in later part
of March.

-

Posted by: straightmedia | April 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

drindl is circling the cut and pastes from Kos, Huff and Nation again.

that empty head runs out of things to say earlier every day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Our ridiculous 2 step caucus system will end going forward regardless of the Obama supporter's cheerleading for it."

Our "ridiculous" 2 step caucus system was set up years ago by the democratic party to help Jimmy Carter. Read up. And I don't agree with it either, but according to the democratic party leaders in Texas, it ain't going to change any time soon. And it will take more than Obama supporters to change it. As I am an Obama supporter and I don't agree with the two step system either. We were asking ourselves at the caucus, why are we here, and the answer was because thats how the Democratic system in Texas set it up. A caucus has never mattered in Texas till now, and it came back to bite them. Over one million caucused. The last caucus that I attended in my preceint had 5 participants. This time there were probably 500. It's not changing any time soon and you can thank your party for that.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Proud, remember drindl fawning over Mccain in the heat of the battle?"

You people just pull sh*t out of you as*. I honestly have never seen anyone as stupid or as dishonest as either of you. It's really shocking to see this level of idiocy... but that's the Republican Low IQ party.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

jep7 you can cut and paste and spin if that makes you happy.
"I believe that HC is finally catching up in the $10-$50 contributions"
No where did I say in absolute dollars just in our contributor base finally making those kinds of contributions with meters, contests etc that were woefully missing in Jan. Dollars have never won a Presidential race. Ask Presidents Kerry and Phil Graham who also had fundraising machines.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Three states seem to be critical Ohio, Pa. and Fla. With Hillary as the Dem nominee, she wins Pa. and Fla., with Ohio a toss-up. With Obama, he loses all three. There are several more states where the Dems lose with Obama and win with Hillary, WV and Ky. are two more Obama can't win and they are iffy for Hillary. These are some of my thoughts NOW about the GE, but Nov. is a long time away.

Posted by: lylepink | April 3, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse


'The Iraqis are making progress, and this latest flare up was something that needed to happen. In fact, I think the Iraqi govt is quite a bit ahead of the Dem Congress at making progress and getting things done."

'I would laugh at this pathetic gibberish, but it's too tragic. Too many young americans are dying because of the gullibility and credulity of people like this.

So clueless Maliki, without a plan, much like Bush -- decides to attack his political enemy in Basra --and demands that all weapons be turned over in 3 days, then gets his butt kicked. He retreats to Iran and begs a cleric there to arrange a cease fire with Sadr, and Sadr agrees after submitting a 9 point demand list [including releasing from prison some of al-Sadr's followers] which Maliki agrees to. A

And in some warped Orwellian form of righwing 'logic' this is PROGRESS? Yeah, it's progress toward the US being mired in Iraq for 100 years.

The DemCongress achieved more in six months than the previous Congress did in 6 years.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

right like my 92 year old mom in a nursing home who voted for HC but couldn't leave to attend our ridiculous caucus. Or my rabbi who was honorable enough to attend our pct caucus for H.C.

Another absolutely ridiculous Obama comment.
"The reason that Clinton does not do well in caucuses and you can take Texas for the perfect example, both primary and caucus, is that people don't want to be seen voting for Clinton and the caucus is an open vote."

Did you bother to read Rep. Silvester Turner, Obama delegate's comments, to the Houston Chronicle that he spoke with many teachers who could not attend their Tx. precinct caucuses b/c they had to administer their TASK tests the next morning. Right those teachers and elderly WWII vets must be some real cowards. Our ridiculous 2 step caucus system will end going forward regardless of the Obama supporter's cheerleading for it.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"staying there continues to produce roughly equivalent consequences"

The great liberal military mind at work here! According to ripper, the consequences of surrender to AlQaeda and handing them a victory are the same as defeating them and sending a message of our committment to our allies around the world.

Wow! Maybe you should go to work with Gen Petreaus and offer him some of your brilliant advice on how to achieve the best long term outcome in Iraq.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has become incontestable. THAT is the consequence of our efforts and the results of the surge, along with the political reconciliation and achievement of benchmarks. To state that the consequences of our premature withdrawl woudl be the same as our continued support of stability in the region is ludicrous.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

wly - I will lay awake at night worrying about this from now on. all I ever cared about was that Libs like me.

when change comes down from the air and reaches the ground, let me know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

king, your comments are pitiful and show exactly why change is in the air.
From now on I use the SOB on your posts (that's scroll on by).

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"I believe that HC is finally catching up in the $10-$50 contributions"

Then you aren't reading the stats about how many FIRST TIME donors are sending Obama small donations.

Believing a proven falsehood suggests some sort of delusional behavior. I think some of the Republicans(current company excepted)learned last time around that believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true. Especially if the evidence is preponderously to the contrary.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I checked out some polls about elections. they said that Hillary was going to beat Rudy by winning Ohio.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Proud, remember drindl fawning over Mccain in the heat of the battle?

the jackals have a very unpleasant realization coming to them soon. I think they know it and are behaving like sour adolescents - as usual. the extreme liberal ways of their candidates are going to spell defeat again. they will blame it on racism or some other false fig leaf. the 15%ers who think Pelosi and Reid are swell and that american defeat and humiliation is necessary are loud, obnoxious but weak politically. you can see this in the passage of laws and votes in congress.

you can see it on this board too. drindl goes on and on with her protected hate speech, but she is a canard of a throwback to a joke. the Libs tolerate her but no one takes her seriously anymore. Her followers are the same. Loud and Dumb. the press fears them as do the candidates.

Obambi fears moveon more than Brit Hume. what kind of coward won't go on the highest rated news program to reach out and make his empty promises of consolidation seem real? a Lib coward, that's who.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The general election will be a horrid realization for these kooks. Obambi will carry fewer states than Kerry and lose bad."

Hmmm, maybe you had better read todays poll:

SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I think any Democrat will do nicely on the issue of the Iraq War this fall. I haven't heard any GOP plan that beats a carefully planned withdrawal, especially when staying there continues to produce roughly equivalent consequences with the additional downsides of American casualties, American mega-money down the rat hole and the demoralizing and dangerous diversion of the bulk of American combat-ready troops.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

koz, The jackals are getting more rabid these days, are they not? You were right, as soon as our nominee was decided they turned on him en masse.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Zouk--you have the right to free speech. And no one is shouting you down even when you are making asenine statements.

However--trying to draw conclusions on Obama's character by saying his name "sounds" foreign, or Muslim or "like Osama Bin Laden" is repugnant.

Money doesn't win elections, nor should it--but Obama's money is not from lobbyists or corporations or interest groups. Even if unions have endorsed him, even if wealthy donors have given to him--Those 200,000 new donors and all of those 400,000 total speak for themselves--money won't win an election, but these donations are not about money-they're about movement!

Posted by: chadibuins | April 3, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

It seems Obama is beginning to have issues with the truth.

did they analyze the clintons and decide that the voters will never be able to tell?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "As to caucuses, where Obama thrives because he can use his cash advantage to get people to the caucus, it is a worse form of democracy than private voting."

That shows you don't know what you are talking about. In Texas, you cannot vote in the two step caucus unless you have a proven registration that you voted in the primary also. Over a million voted in the caucus in Texas.
"His cash advantage"?? Hmmm. I stood for two hours in the cold to vote for him in the caucus, after voting for him in the primary. and I didn't see a dime. And I didn't notice any paid commercials that would influence my vote. In fact, I saw more commercials for Clinton.
The reason that Clinton does not do well in caucuses and you can take Texas for the perfect example, both primary and caucus, is that people don't want to be seen voting for Clinton and the caucus is an open vote.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"it has accomplished around two-thirds of them " - benchmarks that is.

Far better than the Do-nothing Congress here at home.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Proud - be careful about talking to a pack of jackals. remmeber what happened to the Lion King Mufasa.

Oh wait, that was wildebeests.

Same mentality.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Be aware. The times they are a changin. For many decades the people who controlled Washington politics have been the fat cats and lobbyists. They financed the politician who would return their favors, and they profited in the end. The people merely paid the tab.
The Internet has changed all that. Now my $100 donation to Obama has been matched by over a million others, and all of a sudden, the people are finally having their say. That is why the old style politicians, the Clintons and McCain, don't stand a chance. The fat cats and lobbyists won't be buying this election like they have always done in the past.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | April 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

It seems moonbat Libs are undettered by the facts is more like it.

The general election will be a horrid realization for these kooks. Obambi will carry fewer states than Kerry and lose bad.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl, chad, et al, I think it's wonderful that the US intervention in Iraq has afforded the citizens there the right to march and protest. They certainly couldn't do it before, unless they wanted to get buried in a mass grave after spending a little down time in the iron maiden.

The fact remains, success and progress toward stability in Iraq is bad news for libs.

It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to disregard the growing evidence of grassroots reconciliation and political progress.

As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them (12 out of 18) and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made "little" or "no" political progress like Obama says, is simply false.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

It seems that Senator Obama's fund raisiing effort has continued undiminished by the recent character assassination and guilt by association attacks directed at him. It seems, too, that his speech on race was a resounding success.

At this point, besides conservative Republicans, the folks who are not likely to vote for Senator Obama are certain white folks who are race prejudiced and certain women who are gender prejudiced.


Posted by: pbarnett52 | April 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

so let me get this straight, drindl and the pack of jackals can yelp on and on saying whatever spiteful and hateful thing they please with no reprobation.

Repubs can't.

OK, I get it now. Clinton rules. all you had to do was tell me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I recently sent $25 to the Obama campaign. I then did the math and saw that if each of the 70,000,000 people who will vote for him in September were to send the campaign $25, he'd raise 1.75 billion dollars, which is just an obscene amount of money.
I've this keeps up, they may need to revamp the federal election laws and only allow contributions by those who can afford more than $2,300 in one donation.

Posted by: scpato | April 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

The Other Tsunami: Re-Viewing Barack's 40-Million Dollar March

Forty million dollars sounds great, but that is a small fraction of the dollar value of undocumented and in-kind contributions to the Obama campaign, that is, of time, street pounding, door knocking, shoe leather, gasoline, food, lodging, and a massive pile of other expenses gladly paid by an army of volunteers at staging sites all over the United States in March--all of them working for Barack to register voters and get out the vote. Based on my own experiences as a volunteer, I would hazard a guess that we are talking about a tsunami of March support for the campaign that is in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of this forty million dollars in cash. We see rooms of these pumped up volunteers across Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states, eager to head to malls, streetcorners and doors to engage potential voters. Many volunteers travel across multiple states to donate their weekends to the campaign. Now the wave converges on Indiana, since the opportunity to register voters there ends on Monday, April 7. If you are a supporter of Barack Obama, would you seriously consider recharging your spring activist batteries by making a trip to Indiana this weekend?

Stephen Eric Berry
Ann Arbor, MI

Posted by: seberry2 | April 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk--your'e last two posts are despicable and immature--talk about moonbat!

I have nothing else to say--those comments are just so shallow and sophomoric--perhaps drindl is right--it is time to crawl out of the basement and come into the real world were we realize your name should not hinder you or cast doubt on your character---Timothy McVeigh was a G-d fearin' white boy with a wonderful "Christian" sounding name . . .

Posted by: chadibuins | April 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"As to caucuses, where Obama thrives because he can use his cash advantage to get people to the caucus, it is a worse form of democracy than private voting."

More caucus envy.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk, hemorrhoids, kind of hard to tell them apart. especially considering they both afflict the lowest realms of society.

Maybe we could use a standardized test on political science to distinguish them. Never mind.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

do you even bother to read the garbage that you post. Trying reading his response:
CORZINE: I don't think it will have to be a question.

he is saying that he believes that HC will overtake Sen Obama in the popular vote and that that stupid reporter's question is irrelevant.

he also stated that he enthusiastically supports HC and believes she is the superior candidate.
Obamaspeak once again. Day is Night, Up is Down.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

"larry talking about HC supporters as rats and pond scum."

The resident troll has another new nom-de-plume, it would appear. Larry...

Obama's supporters have no reason to write such drivel, that is a Republican trying to divide us.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

As to caucuses, where Obama thrives because he can use his cash advantage to get people to the caucus, it is a worse form of democracy than private voting.

Most people that talk about sanctity of the vote talk will mention how being able vote in private, anonymously, is essential.
I.E. you are checked as voter at the door, but the ballot does not have your name on it.

If one is forced to declare his vote in the open, then people are watching.

Your butcher, who disagrees with you, may be watching, and maybe you might not get the service you once got at the Deli. Worse, a cop for the other candidate could be watching your declaration, or the mayor you want to vote against.

This threat of reprisal results in skewed outcomes that cannot be trusted.

Not to mention that most working americans don't have the time to sit around all day and vote. Which disenfranchises whole segments of the population.

We should call on Howard Dean to end the caucus system, since by its nature, can cause distorted outcomes.

One only need to look at Texas. Or for a follow up, google the primary results for Washington and compare them to the Caucus.

Posted by: camasca | April 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"And Proud . . . that tactic was actually endorsed by Mandela, King and Gandhi; oh yeah and an American poet . . .Thoreau."

Good grief, Proud considers them all commies... but we get your point, and I appreciate it, but I doubt our resident multi-troll understands.

The "Proud to be GOP" coalition is becoming a very small club these days. In red states like Nebraska and Kansas, the smart Republicans are switching parties from the top down.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Without bias, absolutely.

To all supporters of any candidate whom post thoughtful views, you all get the nod. It's interesting to read all of the thoughtful varying views.

Often enough I still have to skim past the repetitive dumb ones...

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

What this means is, for the time being, he has the support of a majority of democrats, a few GOPers and some in the middle. This will all change when/if he becomes the nominee. Hillary's attacks are pathetic and she has proven inept at exploiting his many faults. www.madnessletters.com

Posted by: bradynliam | April 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

jellybean is there a problem with Rendell being magnanomous, what is your point?
Would be nice to hear that same sentiment here from Obama supporters rather than garbage like larry talking about HC supporters as rats and pond scum.
Keep it up Larry, you arae a fine spokesman for your candidate.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

And Clinton claims that Totals aren't important because Obama has always beat them at fundraising. You can bet if the situation was reversed, Clinton would be all over the media pronouncing that she's the one. Give us all a break sweetie. Go home and fry up some eggs for your man.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Jon Corzine, Clinton Superdelegate, Hints At Switching Support

April 3, 2008 in an interview,

Q. Are you saying as a superdelegate and a Hillary Clinton supporter, if she does not have the popular vote you would take your superdelegate vote and support Barack Obama?

CORZINE: I don't think it will have to be a question.

drip...drip...drip...leichtman...drip...drip...drip...

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Osama, Obama, kind of hard to tell them apart. especially considering they both hate america for 20 some years now.

Maybe we could use middle names to distinguish them. Never mind.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain does a 180;

By the time his war is over, he will be 180 years old...

Seriously, though, now he claims it won't be a 100 years of war, does he mena we will be occupiers for 100 years?

Isn't that blatant imperialism?

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

drindl . . . great GREAT reply to Proud concerning al-Sadr.

Excellent points made. Also--I for one am relieved that he is endorsing non-violent protests and civil disobedience instead of rioting and civil war. I am surprised, but optimistic. I actually looked at what was said before jumping off the deep-end from a headline.

And Proud . . . that tactic was actually endorsed by Mandela, King and Gandhi; oh yeah and an American poet . . .Thoreau.

Posted by: chadibuins | April 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Re: campaign contributions - the median donation would be much more interesting.

Re: health care - McCain's proposals are better than nothing but not much. I doubt any family could find coverage for $5000 without a multithousand deductable.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

For a glimpse into Obama's 21st Century advantage, go to facebook and check how many supporters he has...

Incredible. I think everyone here who is still denying the inevitable needs to stop for a moment and consider what they will do when Obama is President.

At least entertain the thought for amoment, then you will all be better prepared for the inevitable.

Ihave to give all of you credit, though, for standing up for your beliefs, no matter how misguided, and for being able to self-brainwash, and maintain your internal status quo, in the face of sheer truth to the contrary

That IS the American way! Especially since the Bush tribulation began.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,

One more thing. For all the supposed "freedoms" enjoyed today by Iraqis, why is that you GOP folk never mention the 100,000 non-combatant, Iraqi civilians killed in your Middle East escapade? Or the fact that the citizens of Baghdad only have electricity a third of the day, compared to 24/7 under Saddam? Or that since your invasion, they don't have adequate supplies of clean water? Or that after five years of war, most of their hospitals and universities are non-functioning? Or that maybe it took a strongman to rule such an unruly collection of sectarians in the first place?

What is it about Saddam that made his rule any LESS onerous for Iraqis who we've killed at rates very competitive with his regime?

And one very last thing:

Whether it's 1 year, 10 years or 25 years from now, how will America withdraw from Iraq without watching in the rear-view mirror as the new Shiite majority settles old scores by slaughtering Sunnis and making alliance with Iran? Old wounds should never be opened in the first place.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

This just in - Osama bin Laden endorses B Hussain Obama aka gutter ball.

The offer to surrender and retreat was too good to pass up.

Osama said that if it got less of his guys killed and he could come out of the cave, he liked the idea.

Obama agreed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Remember, the Iraqis NEVER wanted any of the coalition forces in their country."

Hey ajackson, You apparently forgot to remind all the Dem Congresspeople that voted for the war about this pressing factoid.

What's that you say? The Iraqi people who opposed coalition forces toppling Saddam couldn't be heard at the time because they were all being imprisoned or tortured for treason? Well, I'm sure your'e right. They wanted to remain under the control of one of the world's most heinous dictators.
Their cries of opposition to US intervention were just muffled by Uday and Qusay, so CNN reporters couldn't get a good man-on-the-street interview.


The Iraqis are making progress, and this latest flare up was something that needed to happen. In fact, I think the Iraqi govt is quite a bit ahead of the Dem Congress at making progress and getting things done.

Obama is stuck in Harry Reid mode. His entire campaign rests on one speech give to like-minded community activists in Chicago.. how brave, calling it a dumb war'. The majority of those in his party and around the world disagreed at the time, especially those who had to actually cast a vote, not just make a speech.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters take note,

"I like Barack," Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell says. "If he's the nominee, we'll bust a hump for him."

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to see the rats deserting the sinking Clinton ship. Maybe one day one of them will have the guts to write a tell all about the Clinton cabal and their dishonesty. Pur pond scum is what they are. No class, no ethics, no integrity and no morals.

Posted by: LarryG62 | April 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

It means he raised 15 million less than the previous month. Rev Wright? It also means Jack! He outspents Clinton 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and even 5 to 1 and she's still hanging in there with him. Can't wait till the next primaries:)
Posted by: brigittepj | April 3, 2008 12:14 PM

Oh I forgot this: New Q polls show Clinton in a stronger position than Obama viz-a-viz McCain in general election matchups in FL and OH.
FLORIDA:Clinton 44 - McCain 42
McCain 46 - Obama 37

OHIO:Clinton 48 - McCain 39
Obama 43 - McCain 42

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164

Posted by: brigittepj | April 3, 2008 12:16 PM
--------------------------------
brigettepj is missing the point.

Hillary came into this as a huge overdog with every possible advantage. She is not a true "underdog." Rather she is a classic example of a LOSER -- a heavy favorite who cannot perform in the actual "game."

Obama was consistently running better against McCain in polls of large state voters than was Hillary until this so-called "underdog" began an unprecendented campaign of trashing a fellow Democrat. She is DISLOYAL and UNFIT to be the leader of our party.

Posted by: mnjam | April 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"CNN reported this morning" anything that makes Hillary look good and everything that might make Obama look bad..

CNN is to Hillary what Fox was to Bush.

Unfair and unbalanced.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Corzine endorses HC, drip, drip, drip

ELIZABETH, N.J. -- Gov. Jon S. Corzine endorsed fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday in her bid for the presidency.

The event at Elizabeth City Hall marks the New York senator's first campaign appearance in New Jersey, a Democratic-leaning state that twice gave its electoral votes to her husband, Bill Clinton, in his successful presidential bids.

On Monday Clinton told the crowd of about 400 that if elected, she would pursue universal health care and energy independence.

"I'm running for president because I want to get back to setting goals for our country," Clinton said.

Corzine, who served in the Senate with Clinton before becoming governor in 2006, called her "remarkable."

"I'm proud to say that if George Bush hasn't brought us out of Iraq, she will," Corzine said."

drip,drip, drip

the Carter story was in January after the Ga primary; its old news, drip, drip drip. Corzine was on Monday and apparently not very well reported.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who thinks individuals buying thier own health insurance is great should go out and try to get quotes for insurance coverage. If you arent floored by the quotes, just think, they can raise your premiums however much that they claim they need, they put on amazing preexisting coverage conditions and finally cancel you for being too expensive. How can the individual ever have any leverage vs. the large insurance cos. Its only that the big corporations beat on their insurers to keep costs down the insurance cos turn around and put the screws on the providers and force cost savings.
One of the biggest problems with health care is that it is not focused on prevention, it just waits till people have serious health problems that require large expensive technological "solutions" There needs to be a tremendous mindset change among people in how they use healthcare and there needs to be a tremendous change in how "success" in providing health care is determined.

Posted by: nclwtk | April 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Obama!!! I will make another donation now. Change, here we come!!

To all supporters and contributers, you get the nod =) We rock!!

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

That is amazing- his apparently superior online presence has to be assisting with this in this day and age.

Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83

Posted by: davidmwe | April 3, 2008 10:52 AM
-----------------------

Good point.

Obama is light years ahead of Clinton and McCain in using the internet for communication, organization AND fund-raising. That alone makes him the best candidate -- it is similar to FDR's mastery of the then new media of radio and JFK's mastery of the then new media of TV.

On this score, see a blog in today's NYT about the role of typography in effective use of the internet.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/to-the-letter-born/index.html

Posted by: mnjam | April 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,

Please reply with the URL of a REPUTABLE news headline that claims Al-Sadr "endorses Brack [sic] Obama's plan for withdrawl from Iraq." Nothing from WorldNetDumbly or some such drivel.

Or how about a direct quote from Al-Sadr? No?

You guys never miss an opportunity to miss the point. This article and discussion is about raising campaign funds, not your canned xenophobia.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

hey king try reading the story for once. You do know about filibusters right that thing your side wanted to nuke but now embraces to block even the earmark reforms you lecture us about. YOUR party is not clean on earmarks and one more time I asked if John McCain and you oppose earmarks for New York's port and homeland security and to rebuild Norm Coleman's disrepaired fallen bridges?

Its called HYPOCRISY when the GOP is blocking earmark reductions and then screams you can't have earmarks.
HYPOCRISY, my friends.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

leichtman writes "Behind the curtains, however, many conservatives are finding that old habits die hard"


"Many conservatives" are not running for president. Only one...John McCain is running and has NEVER taken one earmark or porkbarrell project in his entire career as a US Senator.

Not a single one. Compare that to Obama and Clinton who took many millions of dollars of taxpayer money in earmarks and pork despite their promises of reform and transparency.

You just can't trust a liberal when it comes to cutting spending.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Finally, someone comes a bit closer to admitting the truth. Clinton lost in Texas. Obama won the most delegates.

Thank you for finally mentioning the Texas caucuses of over a million voters. Yep, Obama won in Texas.

Posted by: wly34 | April 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It is funny how the Hillary team rushed to disclose how much money they have raised in February before the month ended when they thought they had a good month. Now they said they won't tell the world until and unless the Federal Election Commission requires them to.

Hillary Rocky Clinton has no balls.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey proudtobeGOP,

Remember, the Iraqis NEVER wanted any of the coalition forces in their country. If they did, there would have been uprisings int he country against Saddam long before the coalition invaded. Their way of thinking, beliefs and life is totally different than a western nation. The coalition is trying to help establish a western government among a people who don't even think that way. This is why this is a failure. Of course, the non-believers will spin it to say something else and will even try to blame a withdrawal for the eventual unraveling of this country. Kurds in the north fighting with Turkey, Shias and Sunnis every where else that don't see eye-to-eye. Recipe for disaster.

Posted by: ajackson3 | April 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

What's that giant sucking sound emanating from these campaigns? Oh, that's just the sound of Obama absorbing every last one of Hillary's campaign contributors.

Bye, Hillary. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by: nezbangi | April 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

leichtman - so now you complain that the minority is running the congress.

Says alot about the Pelosi regime.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"This just in: Radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr endorses Brack Obama's plan for withdrawl from Iraq."

So does most of the world, But how is Al-Sadr 'radical'? He is the head of a political party whose members hold 1/3 of the seats in the Iraqi Parliament. He is as 'legitimate' as Maliki.

And as I pointed out earllier -- al-Queda wants us to STAY in Iraq and attack Iran -- so thhat we will continue to weaken or military and defenses:

'Al Qaeda's Zawahiri Rebuts McCain: It's 'In The Interest' Of Al Qaeda To See Iran Fail»
Recently, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly claimed that Iran and al Qaeda are working together to defeat the United States in Iraq. During a March 18 press conference, for example, McCain claimed that Iranian operatives were "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Al Qaeda begs to differ. Danger Room's Noah Shachtman finds that in a new online Q&A session, Ayman al-Zawahiri -- the terrorist organization's number two leader -- clearly states al Qaeda wants Iran to fail in Iraq:

The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. The degenerating state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region."

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

One thing Chris neglected to mention is that the average Obama contribution in March was $96. That indicates a staggeringly broad base of support -- now around 1.5 million donors strong.

For that many voters to put their money where their mouths are shows just how strong a campaign Obama will run in the general election.

He closed a huge gap to win Texas and is on track to shave her lead very close in Pennsylvania, despite Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy and her daily announcements of new multi-billion-dollar programs calculated to buy Pennsylvania voters.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

conservatives and earmark hypocrisy king:

"The conservatives' political posturing over earmarks seems purely an effort to get headlines without actually bringing about change. When Rep. David Obey (D-WI) just last month proposed whacking "an estimated 9,500 earmarks worth about $9.5 billion" from an omnibus spending plan, he ran into deep opposition from conservatives. Conservative bloggers even criticized their party for not supporting the plan."

"Behind the curtains, however, many conservatives are finding that old habits die hard. Several Republican appropriators complain that "Boehner is going too far." Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) said he "is not about to embrace a mandatory reduction in earmarks." David Hobson (R-OH) ripped his party's leaders: "It's kind of an emotional thing they're trying to do...it's a PR move."


Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

oh whither, whither, whither away.

Posted by: shahpesareh | April 3, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I think it is clear what is happening here. America, especially the young, is speaking and doing so loudly! "We the people," do want a REAL change, the change we have all been talking about but now voting it in. Bravo for the common citizen!

Now, just because polls show Senator Obama not fairing well in Ohio and Florida in a head-to-head with Senator McCain does not mean anything. The Democrats have not won those states in the last two elections (should have won in 2000 but that is another story). Also, have you been to Florida? That is where BIG money goes to retire. They don't want a candidate that is going to break-up the status quo, so of course they are not going to vote for the new upstart who is threatening to give the country back to its true stakeholders, all of us! Another thing, Senator Obama has not campaigned in Florida yet. As you can see, when he is on the ground in a state, he makes a difference, his message of empowering the common citizen, most of the residents in Florida, will get out when he campaigns there (I was born and raised in Florida). If he does as he has done in Pennslyvania, he will be successful. The former Governor Graham did a similar approached when he ran for Governor of Florida in the early 80's. It was well received. People like the fact that a politican could roll-up his/her sleeves and relate to people, all people (hint, hint). Finally, by the fall, people will be rallying behind the Democratic nominee stronger than now. So polls this early concerning the Fall general election should not be taking that seriously.

One last thing, I agree with others on here that the fact Senator Obama is still receiving large numbers of new donors speaks volumes to his appeal and his message! Common people doing extrodinary things. Oops, I plagarized.

Posted by: ajackson3 | April 3, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been leading in fundraising for months now.

Still, Hillary won the primary vote count in Ohio and Texas, and is leading in Pennsylvania, and is in a strong position for Indiana and West Virginia.

Obama only has a slight lead despite being the one who has spent the most money, by millions.

Goes to show, Hillary gets the greatest results with the least amount of money.

Posted by: camasca | April 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama should use the money to pay off his personal mortgage because there is zero chance that he will be the next President.

Posted by: lpeter59 | April 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Jimmy Carter Drops Strong Hint for Obama.
Former president tells Nigerian newspaper:

"My children and their spouses are pro- Obama. My grandchildren are also pro- Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess...."


drip....drip...drip.....Hillary.....drip...drip....drip.....

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Clinton-supporting New Jersey governor tells CNBC he has the option to flip to Obama if his candidate can't carry the popular vote.

drip..drip...drip....Hillary....drip....drip....drip.....

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

so in response to the fact that Pelosi didn't live up to her campaign promise (in fact only one of ten were kept), dingbat drindl proclaims that Repubs are better at folowing the rules now in place.

the rules that were supposed to be changed before the party of utter chaos came into power. since Pelosi took over - spending up, corruption up, perversion up, chaos up.

Meanwhile the issues that bother us, social security, medicare, education, health care, energy, etc. have had no action by the do-nothing Democrats. Why were they elected again?

they can't run the congress, can't pass a budget, can't end a war, can't find a nominee, can't win a presidential election, can't tell the truth, can't win on issues, can't keep their zippers up.

Yet we are all supposed to suspend disbelief and elect them to do the same with the executive branch.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

This just in: Radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr endorses Brack Obama's plan for withdrawl from Iraq.


Taking a page from the Obama stump speech, the Shi'ite cleric called on Thursday for a million-strong demonstration against "the American occupation".


On its part, the government said it would not attempt to block the demonstration, provided it was not violent.

"The right to hold a peaceful demonstration and express opinions is guaranteed by the constitution, and we don't mind as long as the demonstration is peaceful," Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told Reuters.

A right given them by the American intervention, I might add.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Raising $40 millions are peanuts for the Clintons... The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Raising $40 millions "honestly" however is very difficult for the Clintons. Let's check their records (tax returns, list of big donors to their foundation, ...) to estimate how difficult it is for the Clintons to get their money honestly.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

It is funny how the Hillary team rushed to disclose how much money they have raised in February because the month ended when they thought they had a good month. Now they said they won't tell the world until and unless the Federal Election Commission requires them to.

Hillary Rocky Clinton has no balls.

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Don -

Do you understand the difference between a primary and a caucus? Texas didn't hold two primaries. It held a primary, followed by a caucus. Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. That popular vote thing. Barack Obama won the subsequent caucus. The overall delegate total was roughly a split.

Black is still black, no matter how many times you call it white.

BB

"Chris,
You nearly got this right. But... Obama, not Clinton, WON the Texas "primaries." Clinton won the popular vote and Obama won the caucuses and so Obama garnered the most state delegates (though granted the results aren't official until the state convention in June). Why is that so hard to spit out?: Obama won Texas."

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 3, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

blarg: you are once again talking about % of Obama contributors that have given smaller amounts. I am more interested in absolute dollars given in that $40 million dollar number how much of that is from $1000-$2300 Obama contributors.

I know of open secrets.com I have dpositions this afternoon and just not the time to study whether my hypothesis is correct but I would be curious to know the absolute dollars of that $40 million which are from the $1000-$2300 contributions. Its my theory only and I may be totally wrong, just throwing that out as an explanation for the $15 million difference.

and king I was right on the mark about earmarks being used in Minn to rebuild Minn's collapsed bridges which John McCain would prefer just leaving those cars in the water:

"Call them earmarks, if you must, but they ain't the "pork" of yesteryear. Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D) and Norm Coleman (R) added a $195 million earmark to the omnibus appropriations bill to rebuild the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis. A bridge earmark - yes, indeed. But this bridge happens to go somewhere."

tell Norm Coleman to end such wasteful earmarks king.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I would think that after spending that much money Barak would be so much further ahead.

I quess money can't buy everything.

Posted by: lndlouis | April 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

People like a winner. This is proof. NEXT.

Posted by: Gharza | April 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

blitzburg I do not argue that Sen Obama has more donors that is admirable, I just don't buy your argument of average dollar amount.

"The $2300 limit on primary and GE donations is well known and obvious. But YOU made a statement about the average INCOME of the donors - NOT the average DONATION AMOUNT. YOUR distinction, not mine.

Obama may have more high-dollar donors. But he has significantly more donors, period.

Again, the AVERAGE dollar amount of a contribution makes much more sense"

talking averages is like talking about how US income has gone up as an average w/o considering that number is skewed by millionair's incomes going up 10X while lower incomes have gone down, which I see as a false argument.

I would truly like to compare the $1000 and $2300 numbers of contributers of each campaign. I believe that HC is finally catching up in the $10-$50 contributions but I really believe that the Obama campaign has far surpassed HC in $1000 and $2300 numbers of contributors. I would certainly have liked to give the full $2300 limit this year but capped it at $500. I may be totally off base in analyzing the $15 million dollar discrepancy but I still believe that there are far more $1000-$2300 Obama contributors, curious if there is anyway to find out.

In any event CNN reported this morning that Sen Obama is actually oversaturating the tv markets with ads which their story claims is only muddling their message. Money is important but having more against a competitive opponent like HC might reduce her Pa spread from 15% to 12%, just don't see that as significant in deciding the nominee.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives lead in earmarks. Filed Under: Congress

Congressional conservatives have waged a high-profile war on earmarks this year, only to be undermined by conservatives who enjoy their pet projects. Today, Citizens Against Government Waste released their 2008 Pig Book, a database of earmarks used in the 110th Congress. The top earmarkers? Republicans:

In the House, Republicans have attacked Democratic Rep. John Murtha for delivering a pile of special-interest funds to his western Pennsylvania district.

But according to the report, two House Republicans bested Murtha: Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who recently became a U.S. senator, and Rep. Bill Young of Florida. The two scored $176.3 million and $169.5 million in earmarks respectively, beating Murtha's $159.1 million.

In the Senate, the top three big spenders were Republicans, who together scored about $1.8 billion in home-state projects. Those senators are: Thad Cochran, the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Ted Stevens of Alaska."

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Charges dropped for "cold blooded murders". Murtha is a disgrace:

"Murtha's charges were broadcast far and wide, and before any investigation of the incident could get underway, the media joined Murtha in finding the Marines guilty of a massacre.

In the ensuing media firestorm that broke out, many news reports here and abroad compared the Haditha deaths to the infamous My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War

There was a crime, but it was the media and Rep. Murtha who committed it against heroic Marines whose careers have been destroyed and some of whose families were bought to the edge of bankruptcy defending their sons."

Libs have no shame.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The Labor Department reports "that 407,000 new applications for unemployment assistance were filed last week," the highest level since September 2005. The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose by 38,000, "up sharply from the 319,000 jobless claims a year earlier.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

'Recently, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly claimed that Iran and al Qaeda are working together to defeat the United States in Iraq. During a March 18 press conference, for example, McCain claimed that Iranian operatives were "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Al Qaeda begs to differ. Danger Room's Noah Shachtman finds that in a new online Q&A session, Ayman al-Zawahiri -- the terrorist organization's number two leader -- clearly states al Qaeda wants Iran to fail in Iraq:

"The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them."

You see, al queda wants us --and Iran-- to be 'sapped' by war in Iraq AND Iran, because they win. And McCain is playing right into their hands.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

To all of the people criticizing Obama for not using public financing. Hellooooo - this is the PRIMARY, not the GENERAL ELECTION. They were talking about the general election when the public financing was discussed as meriting serious consideration. Get your facts straight.

Personally, when it comes to the general election, I hope Obama decides to continue to use his grassroots machine instead of my taxpayer dollars. Why should my tax dollars go to supporting any of this? And the Republicans would never have brought it up except for fear that he will crush them. People should support who they want with their own money, not the taxpayers.

Posted by: jak2 | April 3, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

'In recent days, Sen. John McCain has sought to distance himself rhetorically from President Bush's foreign policy. But on right-wing radio talker Mike Gallagher's show this past Friday, McCain struck a different tone, proudly declaring that "no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

4 more years!

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's see who is more reliable drindl and leichman with the usual propoganda or zouk with links to actual journalists and news stories.

I guess it depends on your definition of science and journalism. We know junk when we see it.

leichtman _ I like earmarks personally. the point was the campaign lies that Libs foist on us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Spending the next 7 hours of your so-called 'life' obsessing over me againm zouk? every day, all day long, all you can think of is me.

Seek treatment, come out of the basement, try to get up before noon sometimes... get a job, son. try to connect wiht another human being -- try to do something with your wretched, miserable existence.
God knows, there isn't much to work with, but try.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, those anecdotes about your neighbors are fascinating. But here's something you may not be aware of: There are sites on the Internet where we can look at actual data about candidate fundraising, instead of relying on your stories about people you know.
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

Open Secrets doesn't have the March data yet, so this is through Februrary. Note that Hillary has raised 24% of her money from people who have donated $4600, and another 51% from people who donated $2300. Only 25% of her money was in contributions of less than $2300. Obama, on the other hand, raised 62% of his money in smaller contributions, including 40% from people who donated less than $200.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you're wrong. Maybe Obama's donors are wealthier than Hillary's on average. But I'm amazed that so many low-income families are willing to donate $4600 or $2300 to Hillary, while Obama's rich backers only chip in $200 each. Kind of hard to believe.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Things change, and anyone who thinks after all the waffling and flip-flopping by the Mccain camp.

This was not a signed contract, it was a plea for reason. And when it became clear the public was going to get involved on their own, Obama was smart to change his tune.

What no one here wants to admit is that OBAMA'S FUNDRAISING IS PUBLIC FINANCING.

If he was only tapping millionaires it might be different, but this fortune is made up of millions of investors.

To me, that IS public financing.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

More lies:

The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html

Lookout drindl, actual facts ahead.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Lies, lies and broken promises is the Lib way:

The Public Trough 'Pig Book' Tallies $17.2 Billion In Pork The Democrat-led Congress last year broke a promise to slash pork spending and doled out $17.2 billion for pet projects, including $296 million in earmarks by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Washington Times

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time a Republican had a 'public policy' idea that wasn't a thinly-veiled attempt to raise profits for a corporate campaign donor?

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

World Views US 'More Positively' The average percentage of people saying the US has a positive influence has risen to 35% from 31% a year ago, and those saying the US has a negative influence has fallen five percentage points BBC

Drindl's lise just never stand up to the facts

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Remember the Pelosi promise to eliminate earmarks? the reality is they are up 30% in a year. That is called frugality in Lib circles.

hillary and Obama have delivered millions and millions in earmarks, of your money. McCain - zero dollars. "


wrong. Earmarks are actually down 40% since Pelosi has been in control check your facts.

Some of those horrible earmarks you rail against are for homeland security of ports and wallstreet in New York City and rebuilding collapsed bridges in Minnesota. I dare Sen McCain to say he wants to reduce homeland security funding in New York City. Go right ahead, that will sell real well with voters. Let your bridges collapse and leave your ports vulnerable, great message, terrible waste of money according to the GOP.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

drindl seems to be so well schooled on every policy position that she is more of an expert on the military, energy policy, health care, finance, economics and everything under the sun than any professor or cabinet member, congressman or CEO./ It is a wonder.

Not bad for an out of work dingbat with no life.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

To followup on my statement that "As a 'square one', I think [McCain's] plan is a better start then either of the [Democrats']."

This is where Mark in Austin's observation about divided government comes into play. There is a compelling argument to be made that a McCain presidency that asks a Dem Congress to develop a health care plan based on the principles of his proposal would produce far better legislation than such produced by a Dem president & Dem Congress. I could see McCain's basic requirements of changing the way tax incentives are allocated (moving them to the individual from the employer) could be coupled with Dem provisions preserving individuals' access to large pools to produce a plan palatable to a majority of Americans.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: No canard here (except in your posts on this subject, which is too bad because I generally enjoy reading your posts).

The $2300 limit on primary and GE donations is well known and obvious. But YOU made a statement about the average INCOME of the donors - NOT the average DONATION AMOUNT. YOUR distinction, not mine.

Obama may have more high-dollar donors. But he has significantly more donors, period.

Again, the AVERAGE dollar amount of a contribution makes much more sense from the standpoint YOU suggested of talking about high-INCOME donors. You still can't make a true statistical declaration without those actual income numbers. However, if Candidate A has an average contribution of $500, and Candidate B has an average contribution of $200, it's not a huge stretch to posit that Candidate A has wealthier donors.

Even more logical: you could also look at how many high-dollar donors each candidate has as a percentage of their overall donor bases.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

another day - another hateful non-stop spew from drindl. get a life old hag!

all the money in the world won't buy gravitas for gutter-ball Obama. In the end, he is just another in the long line of say anything Liberal pols.

Remember the Pelosi promise to eliminate earmarks? the reality is they are up 30% in a year. That is called frugality in Lib circles.

hillary and Obama have delivered millions and millions in earmarks, of your money. McCain - zero dollars.

One thing you can say, Hill and gutter ball sure learned how to spend fast.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

'It's another of these plans to sprinkle magical tax credits all across the land that will incentivize folks to buy less health insurance, but do absolutely nothing for the cost of care. Families get a $5,000 tax credit to help them buy insurance, and they can keep what they don't use, and so the hope is, they'll buy plans with higher deductibles, be unable to afford the deductibles, and will thus buy less care. It's like if I tried to make food cheaper by encouraging you to diet.'

And I can guarantee you that if employers no longer get tax breaks for offering insurance, they will no longer offer insurace. And McCain's plan will not pay enough for people to replace what insurance they had.

Net result -- number of uninsured soars.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Terrybrady;

Your formula will make our host and his fellow poundits skeptical, but I think you are spot-on, and when it happens, the MSM will dump Mccain like a poor relative.

You may be a bit optimistic about the 50,000 at $2300, but I think you are short on the amount that will come from the rank and file, and that difference will still add up to the numbers you are suggesting.

Isn't it simply mahvelous, to see REAL democracy buying AND voting its way out of the 2Oth Century "Fortunate Ones" political pit?

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Hispana and brigettepj, you seem to forget or ignore several details: Hillary Clinton had a $137,000,000.00 war-chest at the start of this race (and name recognition, the blessings of the DNC, the political juggernaut, her husband stumping for as a former POTUS, etc). She was the "inevitable" candidate, per Mark Penn (who seems more of a pinhead, but I digress). Somehow, Hillary's campaign manages to squander the war-chest to the point she lends $5M to the campaign. Her campaign is nearing a $10M debt, her campaign stiffed a bunch of vendors (most of them smaller entities) and failed to pay the workers' insurance coverage premiums.

Obama: his campaign has $625,000 in debt while having $31M cash on hand. I heard no reports of vendors getting the shaft by Obama's campaign. He uses a grass-roots effort to raise insane sums of money, and the funds seem to be used wisely.

If you had to hire either Clinton or Obama for a for-profit company, based on the numbers, who would you hire? Hillary would have you out of business within three years; Obama will make the shareholders smile.

Posted by: meldupree | April 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I am curious, as one of the small contributors to Sen. Obama, when the March donations are tallied, does that include the proceeds from the campaign store? Tee shirts and such?

There's been such a rush on the Obama campaign store that quite a few of the clothing items are on back order.

Do those sales add into the $40 million? It appears that when those back orders catch up, the man will have put clothes or bumper stickers on quite a few of us.

Posted by: GaiasChild | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

I don't necessarily think that his backers are more than individual people. The ingenuity of Obama's camp is that it relies on a system of small but constant contributions. It is a lot easier to ask people to donate $5, who can later donate another $5 automatically next time they receive a paycheck; than holding fund raisers of a one time $1000 a dinner plate. People feel free to donate small amounts when their $ is not intimidated by big backers--coupled with his rhetoric that his people own his campaign, hence replicating the results exponentially.

Of course, there are those who can afford to donate vast amounts of $, and who most likely make a bigger % of his donors--I concede that point.

Posted by: jlm062002 | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

What about the inappropriate way Senator Barack Obama engaged a woman in Scranton Pa yesterday: Obama asked a woman wearing a Hillary button if giving her "a KISS" would help change her mind to vote for him instead. He treated this woman as a sexual thing who could be manipulated by his charm. The last thing a working woman wants is to be addressed sexually - in any manner. It subtly - and sometimes not so subtly - keeps her in her patriarchal place. I believe Obama's comment to this woman says a lot about the ways he would address (NOT!) issues related to women's rights in America. I just am not convinced that he is the best candidate to voice issues that concern , e.g., equal pay, sexual harassment in the workplace, equal opportunity in the military, etc.

Posted by: mjno | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin: My fault. Getting scroll fatigue here. :)

This was Obama's response to the question on accepting public financing at the Cleveland debate.

"What I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody."

Compare this to "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

The only big difference in these statements is that the Republican nominee wasn't known at the time of the LWV questionnaire.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

No fund raising totals, (why be embarrassed?) No tax returns, (Why be embarrassed?)

Posted by: kentduffy | April 3, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

bsimon writes: "Is it worth pointing out that their families' net worths are measured in tens of millions of dollars? It doesn't bother me one whit if people in that category have to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket. I fail to understand why it would bother you. Or do you think taxpayers should be buying healthcare for the richest Americans? Frankly I doubt the richest Americans would choose taxpayer funded healthcare over a private room at the Mayo clinic. Some decisions, when you have the money, are no-brainers."

There are a couple implications to your comments worth discussing. First, let's not give the impression that many rich people are self-insured. They didn't get rich by making stupid choices. Good medical coverage is a necessity to any plan for financial independence. All Americans should have that as a right.

The second point regards out-of-pocket medical expenses. Once a person, especially a self-employed individual, has a pre-existing condition, medical insurance under current conditions or in the McCain plan becomes unavailable or unaffordable. Private insurers guided by market forces will always exclude unprofitable cases. A question for this political season is whether we can do something better than the current -- for lack of a better term -- system.

Finally, there's a portability issue for employees with medical coverage from their employer. Don't all of us know people stuck in a thankless job because of a pre-existing medical condition of a child or spouse. Such a person becomes essentially an indentured servant.

Until healthcare coverage is affordable and universal, we will be guilty of turning our heads and hearts away from much needless suffering. The market is not the answer.

Posted by: optimyst | April 3, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Delinking health insurance from employment will mean that even fewer people will have health care, and it will cost more."

It depends. I don't dispute that McCain's plan, as proposed, has flaws. His plan's flaws are different from those of BHO or HRC. As a 'square one', I think his plan (what I know of it, anyway) is a better start then either of the other two.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is offering a proposal that would truly put the market front and center in a largely conservative prescription to solve America's health care cost problems."

And that -- my friends, says it all.

Look at the smoking ruins of the last 7 years of 'conservative prescriptions' and ask whether you want another four years of that?

Do you want the same people who 'solved' Katrina, Iraq, the economy, our reputation around the world to solve the health care crisis?

Jesus Christ, you should be terrified of the very idea.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

blitzburg I am being objective. Your side keeps repeating this canard about Hillary's wealthy contributors:
"A better gauge would be average income of all *donors*. Clinton's got every big-money Democrat on her ship"

Apparently you are totally unaware that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can only give the same $2300 that I can give. HC voters and supporters are defintely lower income then Sen Obama and while he has attracted many student and small donors as has HC, I can assure you that in sum total that Sen Obama has many more $1000 and $2300 contributions from his supporters earning $200-$300,000; I know of several of my Obama neighbors who have done exactly that. These are upper income professionals who are not the billionaires you alude to.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"As the Clinton campaign is fond of pointing out, she was drastically outspent by Obama in Ohio and Texas and managed to win the primaries in each of those states in spite of that differential."

It is common knowledge, at least among the Ohioans I know, that there was an organized Republican effort in this state encouraging party members to vote as Democrats so they could cast votes for Hillary Clinton. The theory being that, down the line, McCain would have less trouble defeating her than Obama.

No one will ever know how many actually crossed party lines to vote for Hillary. I can only speak from my personal experience - I read (with extreme interest) many forum entries from folks who claimed to have done it and know two 'real-life' people who told me they did as well.

Every time I hear the Clinton team say something about the Ohio win, I can't help but think that they may have won thanks to the extra boost provided by Republican 'spoiler' votes.

Posted by: ericwiley | April 3, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

cullendave says: "possibility #2: maybe the numbers are only medium-bad (say $25 million), and Team Clinton is playing the expectations game."

I think this is the most logical interpretation of the Clinton campaign's decision to wait on releasing their March fundraising results. I'm sure the Clinton numbers will come in around $25 million.

It should be said here that this is a huge amount of money - more than twice what John McCain took in over the same period. In any other year, Clinton would be considered cash-flush. It's just that she's getting outraised by $15-20 million every month, which makes her look bad by comparison.

The truth is, though, that you should be able to be very effective on $20-25 million every month.

Even with a lot of money, it can't be spent without regard to value. The concept of getting value for your campaign dollar has been a major theme of the Obama campaign.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

blitzburgh - you responded to me, not to drindl. This from the LWV website:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?


OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"severing the tie between healthcare & employment" also frees up a lot of enterpeises to grow, from the employers point of view, if our health-care system got weaned from the payroll plan, you would see businesses, ESPECIALLY small business, flourish as it never has.

Cui bono from our current system? Certainly not the majority, and likely the beneficiaries could be counted in one club; the millionaires union.

Millionaires union????

Isn't that located somewhere in DC?

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has $20-22 million that is restricted to the General Election. That's why Clinton's fundrasing and cash on hand is distorted. She just cannot legally spend a signifigant amount of what she has raised.

Peace

Posted by: Digital_Voter | April 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Great analysis, Chris!

It is important to note that as these numbers become public and get passed on to voters in PA many will come to realize that Obama is a winner and Clinton is a loser.

People love to back winners. These developments already are causing deep demoralization in the Clinton campaign whose need to perform reality altering spin gymnastics is taking a tailspin to a complete disaster.

On the field level, reports from bloggers in Pa show a highly motivated army of Obama volunteers hitting the streets daily with many students and young people using their spring break to do campaign canvassing. Another factor is that Obama contributors are also highly motivated folks who have continued working on behalf of the campaign long after the primaries have ended in their states.


We contribute every month and I know of many Obama supporters who give something. It is truly amazing. An electoral campaign with the quality of a movement of the type unforseen in American history

Posted by: rpmorales | April 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I agree, bsimon that the current system is broken, but all McCain's 'health plan' actually is doing is giving a small tax break, which, like school vouchers, will benefit only the already well off, because the amount of the break will never come even close to paying the full cost of care. Delinking health insurance from employment will mean that even fewer people will have health care, and it will cost more.

Unless there are risk pools --and I guarantee you the Republican party will fight any such idea tooth and nail -- all McCain's 'plan', or any R plan yet proposed --does is ensure a higher profit and less risk for insurance companies. That's all it's meant to do.

And I would guess that it includes generous taxpayer subsides to insurers, of course, so that money that could be spent on healthcare goes to middlemen instead. Again, that's the whole idea.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

WHERE ARE THE CLINTON'S TAX RETURNS?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

WHERE ARE THE CLINTON'S TAX RETURNS?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

WHERE ARE THE CLINTON'S TAX RETURNS?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

WHERE ARE THE CLINTON'S TAX RETURNS?

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Posted by: rhbate | April 3, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama is taking a day off from the campaign trail on Thursday, a decision he can apparently afford. The blue-collar charm offensive has been tiring, and the Senator needs a day off
from politicking with the typical white people.

Obama has scheduled fundraisers at the homes of four different financial backers this Sunday afternoon and evening in northern California.

More of those one dollar donations, NOT!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Why vote? The delegates will vote for whoever they wish to vote for.

Posted by: amount | April 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I think you are over the top on this public financing issue and proud is "premature".

I suspect McC would take the $85M ceiling and public financing if BHO would, but we may not get to know, b/c BHO, as Novamatt suggests, can raise so much on the www that he can say "pinch ME!"

But I think the time for seeing if BHO wil do this is after he is nominated, unless someone can enlighten me about the deadlines.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl says: "You have not seen BHO's response on the LWV questionnaire. Trust me, he was less equivocal at one time."

Your first assertion is wrong. Your second assertion implictly acknowledges that he didn't lie. In both the questionnaire and the Cleveland debate, he says he wants public financing. The two statements are not averse at all. One is more qualified than the other. But he'd be foolish to not want a concession on special-interest groups.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Vote your passion in the primaries and vote Democratic in November! Regardless as to whomever wins the Democratic nomination we need a Democratic President in the White House and a stronger Democratic Congress. Vote Democratic in November!

Posted by: bwaatrnwg | April 3, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

A dead man (Woman) walking!

Ms. Clinton: there is no chance that you can win enough delegates to overtake Obama; you don't have enough funds to pay your suppliers (e.g. yesterday's NPR story about vendors threatening to sue for lack of payment.... some not paid for services from December and January).

HRC, for the sake of the party and country, please use your head and leave ... just leave.

Posted by: Enlightened1 | April 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Power to the people!

The academics, operatives and bystanders might take a long pause and consider the far reaching consequence of ordinary people shelling out $25 here and $35 there to support a Presidential Candidate.

This will be the first step in electing an unencumbered President and had the Democratic National Committee been trustworthy of the democratic process instead of rigging elections with the poorly considered use of Superdelegates, this election cycle would have served as the first test model. Consider, Senator Obama started his election already behind in superdelegate (pledges and endorsements) implying firstly, why bother considering a run anyway and second, having to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy courting the ultra silly Democratic Party courtesans. The $ contribution pathway paradigm change is earth shattering and generational.

This phenomenon puts the fat cats in a barrel and makes them wallow around without influence and access. In fact, election finance laws become meaningless for Senator Obama and though unimaginable and not needed, he could easily raise $100 million a month if it were desirable and necessary. This $40 million March month is more noteworthy than last month because his campaign bursars were not even asking for money as the contribution trends were entirely reliable and obviously, bankable. The day the DNC or Senator Obama declares that he is the Democratic Party nominee (obviously, Senator Clinton will never concede or admit defeat), the first few days of General Election contributions season might approach or exceed a half a billion dollars donated to the Obama General Election Campaign. Do the math, firstly the supports who gave their initial $2,300 will double down and send another $2,300. That number of top dollar line contributors must number somewhere around 50,000 people to bring in the first $100 million. Second, the remaining 1.3 plus million smaller $ contributors will certainly give a general election a follow along hundred dollars for another $130 million. Then, you have all the late Democratic Party redeemers who will want to jump in with another $200 million such that they can have bragging rights to claim that they were Obama supporters and contributors. Then, the Republican Party members that can read the writing on the wall will switch support to Obama simply because they want to be a notable contributor to the next (two term) President of the United States of America. And finally, Independents will similarly join in by making substantial contributions. Imagine the Senator McCain camp looking down the barrels of a half a billion dollars in the Obama Campaign coffers. Watch it happen!

Posted by: terrybrady | April 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

NICE!
-And we'll use that cash first, to knockout Crazy Hill...THEN vanquish the old BabyBurner!

Posted by: kase | April 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Yes you must have money in the USA to run for president. No... everyone does not have the same opportunity to run for president.

Everyone should be able to receive the same airtime. The media selects the president in this country.

In China the Media is controlled by the government, in the USA the Media controls the government.

Your vote does not count.

New Mexico voted for H.Clinton. The Governor of New Mexico is a super delegate that will ignore the wishes of the state he is the governor of. Democracy in the USA is a SHAM it is Hollywood it is a PROP

Posted by: amount | April 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

on the surface, this would seem like a bleak sign for hillary. but--as pointed out--would she wait to release awful numbers right before the PA primary?

maybe.

maybe they are banking that the news will have little effect on voters, but a big effect on other donors. both of those tend to be true.

so maybe they figure they can get two more weeks of modest fundraising before they release the grim news and make it all the harder to raise money. this stuff is so self-fulfilling.

possibility #2: maybe the numbers are only medium-bad (say $25 million), and Team Clinton is playing the expectations game.

in that case, maybe they are planning to squelch the numbers for a day or two, let all kinds of stories circulate about how bad they must be, and then reveal them and have analysts, go, "oh. that's not so bad"--and then write stories about how hillary was written off again and came back again, and she's still in this.

that would be EXACTLY the kind of thing you'd expect from a carville or wolfson or penn. they make their money off of reducing expectations and then exceeding them.

we might just be in the expectation-reduction phase of their plan at the moment.

it will be interesting to see.

Posted by: cullendave | April 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: HIPPA at least in Texas specifically precludes exclusions for pre existing coverage if there is not a 62 day gap, maybe its different in your state but that issue has been dealt with here. Obama's plan is piece meal and as someone looking towards retirement it does not comfort me to think of having to pay $1200/mo. This issue is number one for my family. Without true universal coverage Obama's plan will only minimally reduce those kinds of premiums, again that is based on input I have had from healthcare experts.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: Your argument about average income is fallacious, because you're trying to gauge average income of all supporters.

A better gauge would be average income of all *donors*. Clinton's got every big-money Democrat on her ship. Notice that the proposal to use private funds for a Michigan primary re-vote was backed by 12 ultra-wealthy Clinton donors. Notice that the threatening letter sent to Nancy Pelosi was signed by almost 20 ultra-wealthy Clinton donors. Notice that Clinton has received contributions from the likes of Ron Burkle, Susie Tompkins Buell and Robert Johnson.

Finally, notice the average amount of an HRC contribution and the average amount of an Obama contribution. Notice the percentage of "small" donors for each campaign. The numbers don't bear out your argument.

There's nothing wrong with supporting Clinton. Just be objective.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

What's funny is that Hillary's fundraising was fine. In '04, she would have easily outraised anyone else in the primary, and would have been competitive with Bush. It's like someone finally runing the four-minute mile, and then watching aghast as some superfreak runs a three-minute mile.

Obama is a money-raising superfreak, and most of that money is of the small contribution variety rather than the kind he'll be raising tonight in CA, which makes him still freakier. The advent of direct-mail fundraising was what resuscitated the fortunes of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The internet is direct mail hopped up on HGH.

And I know that people at the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC are just drooling over this potential. Imagine a cadre of well-financed D challengers facing off against less-endowed R incumbents coast to coast. Think of how much easier candidate recruitment will be. Think of the permanent IT and grassroots infrastructure the party orgs can build. Somebody pinch me.

Posted by: novamatt | April 3, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

You want to see the leader in a campaign.

Just follow the money.

Some things never change.

A person who doesn't take money from special interest groups would never get near the amount of money raised so far in this Democratic Presidential Campaign.

A person who only took donations from citizens would be out of the race.

Posted by: camasca | April 3, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

'Obama was the one to throw down the gauntlet when he first entered the race! He made the pledge -he initiated the challenge to any Rs."

And John McCain passed a law about campaign finance and is now breaking it.

'And then when he realized how much money people were willing to throw at his campaign, Obama suddenly became much less enamored of the idea.'

As did McCain..

'Now he's trying to claim that he never made the promise. Peel back the first layer and he's just another ultra-liberal lying politician.'

and McCain is just another ultraright wing tool of corporations/ lying republican.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"It's the economy, stupid!" It always is. In the USA a majority vote with their wallets.

Who votes for someone willing to spend 4xs as much to get less in return? Do you want the feds spending 4xs as much as they do now to deliever less?

If that's you, "what's in your wallet?"

Posted by: mcohill | April 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

blitxburgh, you have not seen BHO's response on the LWV questionnaire. Trust me, he was less equivocal at one time.

Leichtman, bsimon and I and others think that employer centered insurance is the single most anti-competitive factor for American business in a world where other nations either do subsidized individual private insurance accounts like Switzerland or National Single Payer like the UK and Canada.

But bsimon and I and others oppose national single payer for various reasons. We have looked at other models here and discussed them at length, and will again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

has anyone bothered to report that Sen Obama's supporters have an average higher income and that my $500 contribution to HC was probably doubled by quite a few of the Obama contributors. HC has raised $5 million in the last week, and has an Elton John concert which will raise over a million, her campaign is not going broke as her opponents are spinning like mad. John Kerry had unprecedented fund raising prowess which meant absolutely nothing in the end. The free media with Keith Olberman, Mika Brazinsky and Chris Matthews nightly love fests, probably means more to the Obama campaign than their $40 million. Watch how quickly that love fest will end if he wins the nomination, all we will hear about is his pledge to use federal matching funds.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

brigettepj.......he is alot less known than Clinton....all ignorant America really knows about Obama is that hes a muslim and his preacher is racist......those are the only misconceptions....that the haters can bring up....when the truth is.....Hillary has way more skeletons in her closet.....along with the obvious......but American is the home of the free and simple minded.....glad I'll be dead in 60 years......when people will have to stand accountable for being ignorant

Posted by: exhooper | April 3, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"Has the actual timeline for declaring for public financing of the GE begun?"

Good question. Perhaps Mr Kane will cover that in tomorrow's article. The angle discussed in his chat was whether McCain's hands were already tied, due to his prior acceptance of funds. The is apparently unclear & in limbo until some appointments to the FEC are cleared in Congress.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama never said that he'd use public financing for the primary campaign, just for the general election campaign. So his current fundraising has nothing to do with that pledge.

mcohill, in what way has Obama "delivered less" than Hillary? If you haven't noticed, he's got a nearly insurmountable delegate lead. He's won more states and more delegates, and gotten more superdelegate endorsements this year. Sounds like his campaign has delivered plenty.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj says: "It means he raised 15 million less than the previous month. Rev Wright?"

No. Follow this carefully. He raised $55 million in February. There were 11 primaries between February 6 and February 28. The more competition there is, the more fundraising comes in. Note that Clinton raised $35 million in February, and will likely report much less in March. Would that be Rev. Wright too? *snicker*

brigittepj says: "It also means Jack! He outspents Clinton 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and even 5 to 1 and she's still hanging in there with him."

Obama outspends Clinton because he has the cash to do so. Besides, wasn't Clinton the candidate with the $120 million war chest, the huge poll leads, the name recognition, and the raft full of endorsements - even before January 1? Obama is spending because he needs name recognition. If he managed his money like Clinton, though, he wouldn't have any. :)

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "pledge" to stick to public financing is another urban myth, anyone who thinks it is tantamount to McCain's actually SIGNING FEC PAPERS to establish public financing when his fortunes were misfortunes, (thank you Mitt, there's another varmint you slayed for us).

Obama may be backpedalling, but that is hardly the same as committing a running felony, which McCain is doing as we speak.

If the FEC was whole, they could put McCain in jail for what he doing right now. But no one seems to consider that a matter of contention.

Hillary's and Mccain's thousands of donors are tapped out, to the limit, and they can't find new "one born every minute" supporters to match Obama's "little people."

Each of those people started with a $50 donation, now they are even more energized and adding another $100, which is much more dear to them than the pittance Hill's and Johnny McFlounder's millionaires give.

No doubt, if the limits were un-limited, Hillary and McCain would be raking in more dough, but not more supporters.

Obama's people are the literally most powerful economic force in the history of politics, they outweigh every special interest and wealthy contributor base that exists or has ever existed.

And if Obama needs it, they have just begun to give. But I think even the greedy MSM will have to acquiesce to this incredible money machine that history never saw coming.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I understand the historical reasons that tied healthcare to employment. My point is that such a system is outdated. If the goal is to improve our country's aggregate health & to improve individual's health care choices, severing the tie between healthcare & employment is a step in the right direction. Personally I've changed jobs about every 2 years. That means I've had about 8 different healthcare plans. Lucky me, I haven't generated any pre-existing conditions in that time, but if I had, I'd be forced to stay with the same employer - just to retain coverage for such a condition. That's not choice.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

proud, bsimon, and drindl:

Has the actual timeline for declaring for public financing of the GE begun? I thought the deadline for declaring was after both parties had official nominees.

I'll go look if I get time, but maybe one of you know.

I thought the time to finalize the McC-BHO "deal" was after both were nominees.
Having said that, it is clear that BHO has lost enthusiasm for the deal.

As I understood it, each candidate would be guaranteed $85M but limited to that number for the three months preceding Election Day.

I could be very wrong.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse


Woo Hoo! Go OBAMA!

I'm going to donate right now.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | April 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Wolfson said "We will have the resources that we need to compete and be successful in the upcoming primary states." Sure they will, as long as they don't pay off their debts, which are rapidly approaching ten $million.

Posted by: rawehage | April 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

LeftwithNochoice:

Do you have a link to said memo?

Posted by: jlm062002 | April 3, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP says: "Now [Obama]'s trying to claim that he never made the promise [on public financing]. Peel back the first layer and he's just another ultra-liberal lying politician."

Again: Nope, sorry. That dog won't hunt.

Check the tape from the Cleveland debate. MSNBC has it on their website. In direct response to Tim Russert's question on the same interview, Obama said that he wants to do public financing, provided that he and McCain can come to an agreement about how to limit the influence of 527 and 501(c)4 groups on advertising and other campaign finance issues.

Try again, though. Just bring more game next time. :)

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

.

I was a big Hillary Clinton Supporter, but now, after learning about Everything...

I'm voting Obama for President.

She's Crazy and a Liar! I am switching to Obama!

I hope Obama wins because Hillary Clinton almost tricked me.

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | April 3, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh I forgot this:

New Q polls show Clinton in a stronger position than Obama viz-a-viz McCain in general election matchups in FL and OH.


FLORIDA:

Clinton 44 - McCain 42

McCain 46 - Obama 37


OHIO:

Clinton 48 - McCain 39

Obama 43 - McCain 42

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164

Posted by: brigittepj | April 3, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

" In whose mind is it a good idea to tie healtcare to employement?" said bismon

its a huge expense to employers but it is also part of compensation that large corporations use to attract the best employees.Corporations would love to not have to deal with that costs but also understand that it is the best way for them to attract and hold on to employees in a competitive corp world.

As a boomer who wants to see real healthcare reform for our retirement healthcare and hr experts I have spoken with believe that HC's plan is superior because it won't allow young healthy people to game the system until they need it, its called AntiSelection.
McCain's tax credits are a complete joke. You tell me where you can go out an buy healthcare with a $2500 tax credit unless you are 20 years old and want want a catastrophic plan with at least a $10,000 deductible, not something I would waste my money on. And Healthcare savings accounts are generally not available from carriers and accomplishes absolutely zero to control costs.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

It means he raised 15 million less than the previous month. Rev Wright?

It also means Jack! He outspents Clinton 3 to 1, 4 to 1 and even 5 to 1 and she's still hanging in there with him.

Can't wait till the next primaries:)

Posted by: brigittepj | April 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

thecrises wrote, "If you look at Obama's income versus output, I'd say he already has the economic argument in the bag for the general election."

Spend 4xs as much to run a campaign (or the federal government) and deliver less!

Sounds like thecrises is a Republican trying to define the Democratic Party in unflattering terms.

Posted by: mcohill | April 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

SEE THE LEAK FROM HRC CAMPAIGN HQ !!

This memo was leaked and it's causing quite an Uproar already!!!

She instructs her people to:

1) Try to Cozy up to minorities in places where 'Playing the Race Card' will hurt you (like in States where Blacks are the Majority).

2) 'Play the Race Card' in states with a lot of racist Whites who may blame Blacks for the loss of Good Jobs. Crying gets the White Women vote - they can relate to this, and will turn out in force.

3) ALWAYS be secretive - about anything you can be (you never know what the Press may find).

4) Lie as much as possible. This diverts focus from Real Issues and confuses the press and makes getting a Story nearly impossible. Also, we can make up stories that sound a lot better than the real thing.

Thank you majorteddy for the leak!

Boy, her crew is SINISTER, huh?

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | April 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The $40 million is the third most important figure in Obama's announcement, although the press always leads with the dollars.
The significant figures is that he got donations from 400,000 people, of whom 200,000 were new to this campaign.
200,000 new donors this month -- this late in the season! How many campaigns in the past have had 200,000 donors in total?

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | April 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP says: "Of course Obama's raising tons of money- now that he weaseled out of his promise to take public financing."

Nope, sorry. Those darn facts are tripping again. What Obama has said is that he's willing to take public financing - provided that he and John McCain can sit down and discuss how to reduce the influence of 527 and 501(c)4 groups. Those are notorious Republican tools for a campaign, and not controlled by current campaign finance laws. So, until those are resolved, why would he accept campaign limits?

proudtobeGOP also says: "The renege on the public financing promise is just another example of his ability to convince people of his earnestness, while with a wink and a nod he goes behind their back and says he never really meant it - just like NAFTA-gate."

He didn't renege on anything, as explained above. By the way, you missed the part where the CBC has Ian Brodie (chief of staff to Canadian PM Stephen Harper) saying that the CLINTON campaign called them first to assure them about their support for NAFTA. The Canadian government subsequently contacted Austan Goolsbee directly for an informal meeting. They did NOT contact the Obama campaign.

This is why Obama first denied the meeting - the campaign manager and senior staff didn't know about it.

See? You learn something new every day. :)

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | April 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain has a great plan for improving access to healthcare insurance and improving portability, as well as cost containment.

According to independent analysis:

McCain's plan would provide very strong incentives for employers to transfer the primary responsibility for purchasing health insurance from the employer to the individual market.

His plan is very much about individual choice and responsibility and the conservative view that consumer control is critical to cost containment.

Included in the McCain plan:

Allowing people to buy health insurance nationwide instead of limiting them to in-state companies.

Permitting people to buy insurance through any organization or association they choose as well as through their employers or buying direct from an insurance company.

Providing tax credits of $2,500 to individuals and $5,000 to families as an incentive to buy health coverage.

Supporting different methods of delivering care, including walk-in clinics in retail outlets across the country.

Revamping Medicare payment systems to pay providers for diagnosis, prevention, and care coordination without paying them for preventable medical errors or mismanagement.

We cannot let the search for high-quality care be derailed by frivolous lawsuits and excessive damage awards. We must pass medical liability reform, and those reforms should eliminate lawsuits for doctors that follow clinical guidelines and adhere to patient safety protocols.

The McCain proposal, unlike the Democrats' proposals, also does more than give lip service to the marketplace.

McCain is offering a proposal that would truly put the market front and center in a largely conservative prescription to solve America's health care cost problems.


http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/10/analysis-of-senator-john-mccains-health.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

mcohill...

Obama is expected to lose Pennslyvania. Hillary has always lead in the polling there by at least 20pts up until March 11th. Hillary has the support of the most powerful and popular Democrats in the state, ranging from Gov. Rendell to Philly Mayor Nutter to House Democrat Murtha. Most of the Democratic establishment in Pennslyvania is for Hillary in which Hillary has access to their local political machines. Hillary has nearly always done well with white-working class Democrats.

If Obama loses to Hillary by less than 10pts and shows some erosion of Hillary's white-working class Democratic base to him, it will be seen as a draw in the media because Hillary clearly had the advantage going in.

Obama has to spend more because he is completing against one of the most powerful political machines (The Bill and Hillary Clinton Machine) in US history.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 3, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

This is a major glimpse into who would be able to better manage our national economy. I certainly would not want to have a president whose campaign was full of financial blunders.

Posted by: jlm062002 | April 3, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you comment that a stampede of super delegates to Obama seems unlikely at the moment. But isn't that already what is happening? Since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up 65 endorsements from super delegates to only 9 for Clinton. How is this not a stampede?

I would imagine that today's news about yet another record-breaking month of fund raising (along with the recent apalling behavior of Bill Clinton vis a vis "Judas" Richardson) will encourage even more super delegates to sign on with Obama. A steady daily accumulation is the form that this stampede will take over the next three weeks.

Fifteen months ago, Sen. Clinton enjoyed a huge lead over the field of Democratic contenders in every category: she had more money, more big name supporters, more staff, more press attention, more name recognition, more "inevitability." The mind-bogglingly inept campaign she has run, featuring tragically mismanaged finances and Internet usage, has turned this golden opportunity into a mire of defeat for her.

Oh, and yeah, Sen. Obama did in fact "win" Texas because he collected more delegates which is what counts.

Posted by: dee5 | April 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

A holdover handful of questions for you, Chris, on what I recall to have been your prior comment about Obama's mostly verbal altercation with a photo-seeker induced by the guy's crude intervention in Barack's dialogue with someone else (kids?):

Do you conclude that John McCain would have stomached this rudeness with greater gallantry?

Do you believe that Hs. Clinton would have abided it calmly?

Given Hillary's reported history of sour relations with past security officers detailed to safeguard her, do you suspect her current security contingent would have escaped without a tongue-lashing or worse?

I suspect it would have generated another tale of male victimization.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama was the one to throw down the gauntlet when he first entered the race! He made the pledge -he initiated the challenge to any Rs.

Obama- September 2007: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."


And then when he realized how much money people were willing to throw at his campaign, Obama suddenly became much less enamored of the idea.

Now he's trying to claim that he never made the promise. Peel back the first layer and he's just another ultra-liberal lying politician.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

There is no plausible way Clinton can win the election. She is a very smart person; I have got to believe that she understands that too. So why does Clinton stay in the race? So she can continue to raise enough money to pay off the extremely large debts that she racked up before Super Tuesday, which includes over $2 million to Mark Penn and $5 million to herself. She is doing just enough in PA to seem like she is still trying to win, but not enough to garner the landslide she would need to begin to catch up to Obama. I don't blame Clinton for doing this . . . I wouldn't want Mark Penn to be able to hold anything over my head either when this thing is done. Also, Clinton's cash on hand totals are deceptive . . . she can not use the money she has raised for the general election to pay off primary debt. Staying in the race really is the only way she can end this thing in the black.

Posted by: lisa8 | April 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

.

I doubt even the DNC likes Obama raising this kind of money. This kind of grassroots power has got to worry them.

If he can raise this kind of money against a Democratic Presidential Favorite like Hillary RodHam Clinton, just imagine what kind of damage he could do to the status quo if he had lost the nomination. If he were to go Green, what would that do to the party's money?

This guy is a Golden Goose. The only problem is, he calls his own shots: Nobody is pulling his strings like they can with Hillary.

This ability to make money or take money away from the party is why super delegates will ultimately back him. They do not want to piss off him and his supporters.

And talk about the will of the people? There is no greater show of support than writing a personal check to a guy running for President. Look at the number of donors in March alone. This IS the will of the people. The will of the democratic voters is behind Obama. That is why he will be the party's nominee.

And those who don't like it, feel free to support your candidate. It's a free country.

By the way, why wont Hillary release her tax returns? Is she afraid her donors will see that she can afford to fund her own campaign?

She raised the most money, and for that matter, the most votes based on sympathy, like when she cried after each loss and very publicly took 5 million dollars of her "own money" (which she mysteriously 'earned' doing what?) to continue her assault on the White House.

Where would she be without sympathy? She's made a career of it. I'll bet my Obama donation that she's got at least one good cry left in her. It's heart touching to see.

*sniff*

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | April 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"And of course -- JOHN MCCAIN has done exactly the same thing. So I guess you feel the same way about him?"

In the Paul Kane chat, a question was asked on the subject. Apparently Mr Kane will have a piece on the subject in tomorrow's paper. Check out his brief answer & hints at the article's contents in his response (you can get there from the front page).

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

What does it means you ask Chris Cillizza?

Obama's $40 million March haul means we Obama supporters are not going anywhere. Obama is going to be competitive all the way up until July 1st, when all the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will have chosen Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Bill Clinton can blow his load all over another bimbo so we'll all feel sorry for Shrillary and maybe, just maybe she'll be able to raise some money for this election.

It's not the amount of dollars that Obama is raising - it's the source. It shows that he is energizing this country and with a well run campaign can beat McCain.

Shrillary surely can't. America is sick and tired of liars and opportunists, which is exactly what this tired old nag is.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | April 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Does this mean the content of HRC ads are 4xs more valueable than the O-man's ads and more effective too? Why would the O-man's people brag about that?

In business, if you spend 4xs as much as your competitor and still sell less product, you're product is a loser and the CEO is replaced.

Posted by: mcohill | April 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"without a risk pool, as individual purchasers of health care, we are absolutely at the mercy of marketers."

The question then is how to create risk pools. In our existing system, risk pools are primarily made up of employees of specific companies. This means that larger companies have larger pools - and thus lower rates - than smaller companies. For the self-employed, the rates are astronomical (though there are groups trying to address this problem by creating pools by other means than having a common employer).

That last point - the parenthetical one - is critical. How do we create an environment where people can self-select the pools they want to join? Its ludicrous that the cheapest healthcare I can acquire is through my employer. As it works currently, my employer offers pretty good coverage. But if I go to work elsewhere, its a roll of the dice. In whose mind is it a good idea to tie healtcare to employement? Its an idiotic system that needs to be changed. While the McCain plan may have flaws, its a move in the right direction - severing the ties between employment & health insurance. Both Democrats' plans fail in this regard. HRC's is the worst of the lot, in my opinion.

For other alternatives, Tom Friedman has written on the subject; I don't recall if it was in a book or an opinion article, but he mentioned a plan by the progressive policy institute that intrigues me.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

It's 3 a.m. in the Billary campaign.... when will she hang it up?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | April 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Of course Obama's raising tons of money- now that he weaseled out of his promise to take public financing.

The renege on the public financing promise is just another example of his ability to convince people of his earnestness"

And of course -- JOHN MCCAIN has done exactly the same thing. So I guess you feel the same way about him?

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Yet here's a wrinkle, from a source with direct knowledge of Richardson's conversations with the Clintons: Richardson himself told Sen. Clinton and former President Clinton that he didn't think Obama could win, back when he was (according to the Clintons) telling them earlier this year that he wouldn't endorse Obama. "Too inexperienced," Richardson said, the source tells ABC News. "

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

All the money in the world and he still can't buy the PA vote. Narrow the margin maybe, but this fact speaks volumes.

Don't tell me people don't know who he is by now. If Obama can't win this election with the media in his pocket and caucuses that disenfranchise voters and literally buying superdelegates, I will be proud of the american people for looking at the right reasons for electing a leader.

Posted by: Mel5 | April 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

not to mention, bsismon, but as individual purchasers we will have no leverage and there will be no constraints to cost. so prices will go up, as with every precious commodity. the idea of price competition between doctors is ludicrous.

look at oil. where is the competition that is bringing down prices? the same will be for health care.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I wonder why Hillary is refusing to release her March fundraising numbers until legally required.

Posted by: max | April 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Of course Obama's raising tons of money- now that he weaseled out of his promise to take public financing.

The renege on the public financing promise is just another example of his ability to convince people of his earnestness, while with a wink and a nod he goes behind their back and says he never really meant it - just like NAFTA-gate.

Now, the White House is urging Congress to approve a trade agreement with Columbia, which would remove most tariffs on American exports and cement Colombia's preferential trade status with the US.

But Illinois Sen. Obama said Wednesday he would oppose the deal.

"I deplore the fact that Senator Obama, aspiring to be president of the United States, should be unaware of Colombia's efforts," President Alvaro Uribe said in a statement. "I think it is for political calculations that he is making a statement that does not correspond to Colombia's reality."

The real reason he opposes it (in public) is that he is wooing labor union members in Pennsylvania.

Obama's advisors have no doubt assured the Columbians that he didn't really mean it. Just have Goolsbee handle all this negotiating...his honesty is so refreshing.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Jac13- Of course it has significance- it's better to have money than not to have it. But once you have the critical minimum that you need to compete, the next few million matter less and less. 40 million is not much more than 20 million in this context. But the first 10 million are indeed critical, and after that there are diminishing returns on the expenditure of campaign dollars. This isn't an argument, it's a fact- money by itself won't close the deal with voters. Clinton was massively outspent in Ohio, as was McCain in every state he had to compete in.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon,
The initial anouncement isn't what hurts Clinton it is the five days of Chris Matthews and everyone else saying "Is she broke" "Can she still compete" etc.

In addition, this is on top of the reports that she hasn't paid all her bills, and her big staff are owed millions etc. If she waits unitl the the 20th then the news is all gonna be about the polls and who will win, and what happens if Obama loses and what happens if clinton loses etc. It won't measure more then a blip on the radar that week IMO.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The following should worry the Obama campaign and the superdelegates:

Hillary Clinton holds a nine-point lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But it is the survey's general election numbers from three key swing states that may do more to bolster the New York senator's campaign.

In hypothetical match-ups with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Clinton outperformed Barack Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In each of these states, Clinton is propelled by solid support among female voters, and Democrats -- particularly white Democrats -- in all three are less likely to defect to McCain with Clinton atop the Democratic ticket.

Overall, Clinton is up nine points over McCain in Ohio, while Obama runs about evenly with the Arizona senator. Clinton also has a more sizable edge in Pennsylvania and is competitive in Florida, a state where McCain is up nine points on Obama in the new poll.

Polling about November in the midst of a hotly contested primary contest is a perilous enterprise, but a Clinton campaign eager to sway superdelegates is sure to latch onto the new data. And the crosstabs do reveal some early obstacles for Obama.

About one in five Democrats in each of these three states said he or she would support McCain if Obama were the Democratic nominee; that is about double the proportion who would vote for the Republican against Clinton. And Clinton outpaces Obama among white women by double-digits in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alike.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies.

He is not only geeting cash from Americans but registerinig millions of people too. I believe they will be vital in the Novembers election. Mitty has many but no following. Obama has both.

Posted by: jdaveuk | April 3, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

' I fail to understand why it would bother you. '

you are missing my point entirely. let's put their worth out of it. the wealthy will get healthcare no matter what. they always do. but the rest of us won't.

if 'market forces' decide who gets health care, then cancer survivors, anyone with a chronic condition [like most of the middle-aged] the disabled, and a slew of others -- like anyone who isn't relatively young and healthy -- won't. except perhaps at astronomical, unnaffordable rates.

without a risk pool, as individual purchasers of health care, we are absolutely at the mercy of marketers. it's sheer social darwinism-- but that's what the R's want.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

bsimon;

Unfortunately, the defection of some of Edwards' top 2004 staffers to Obama long before this contest got heated, has left a bitterness between the Edwards and Obama that does not reflect the opinion of most Edwards former supporters.

This goes back to a time before anyone saw Obama's tidal wave forming, so it didn't matter as much then, But now, with the complexion of this race and its historic dymnamics in play, those old wounds will never heal and we can, unfortunately, expect a spirit of bitter retaliation rather than party-healing contrition.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton ... in Ohio and Texas managed to win the primaries in each of those states... (Obama won a convincing victory in Texas caucuses.)"

Chris,
You nearly got this right. But... Obama, not Clinton, WON the Texas "primaries." Clinton won the popular vote and Obama won the caucuses and so Obama garnered the most state delegates (though granted the results aren't official until the state convention in June). Why is that so hard to spit out?: Obama won Texas.

Posted by: don | April 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

You people making noise must understand that Obama has to spend money in order to introduce himself to America. That's a fact - and he's doing a great job. In this race, people barely knew him, unlike McCain and Clinton that have always been in the public sphere for as long as who knows how long? We are loving this. Go Obama! He was down 20 points in PA, we can live with it when he narrows that gap - it's great!

Posted by: tintin08 | April 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me where Hillary Clinton's Milionaire fund raisers are? I mean those who threatened Nancy Pelosi??? May be they can help contribute more dollars and 20 votes in the presindential Elections. My friends, if you have nearly 2 million people on your side, I do not see the reason why Obama camp or the Dems Party should stoop to the demands of Hillary's rich friends. GO OBAMA 08.

Posted by: jdaveuk | April 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I remember not long ago (before the 2006 elections) you, David, the "other" Chris, and most of your fellow poundits still held to the theory that big-money politics would consistently outweigh grassroots politics.

Seems as if Obama's people have married the two halves, and the results are historic and mind-boggling.

So maybe it is time to acknowledge that Obama's wave is really a rising tide, and that there's a new kind of politics being birthed before our very eyes.

You guys need to decide if you are going to be the rightful midwives to this historic birth, or distant observers.

This piece today is leaning towards the midwives scenario, keep after em' and maybe even the likes of Craig Crawford will join the inevitable delivery.

Posted by: JEP7 | April 3, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

drindl writes
"Elizabeth Edwards pointed out that she and John McCain had something in common, that neither of them [cancer survivors] would get coverage under his health plan."

Is it worth pointing out that their families' net worths are measured in tens of millions of dollars? It doesn't bother me one whit if people in that category have to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket. I fail to understand why it would bother you. Or do you think taxpayers should be buying healthcare for the richest Americans? Frankly I doubt the richest Americans would choose taxpayer funded healthcare over a private room at the Mayo clinic. Some decisions, when you have the money, are no-brainers.

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

It sure doesn't look like the pastor issue has hurt Obama's ability to attract new supporters. I hope someone digs up another drama to help him win the nomination.

Come on Hillary what else do you have in your bag of tricks? You've already used slum lords, race, religion, sexism, the underdog, and the I'm broke issues, so you'll have to be more creative this time. We the people need reminding about why we want change...after all you think we have short memories.

Posted by: AverageJane | April 3, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3 writes
"The telling fact of this is that the Clinton campaign won't release their numbers until right before the election. I would be willing to be that is because she took in less than 1/3 of Obama's take."


Now to play devil's advocate. If Clinton's fundraising efforts for March are so dismal, wouldn't it be bad strategy to put that into the news right before the vote? Or are you arguing that they'd be able to sweep that news under the rug & promote another story for the last 2 news cycles?

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

So, dyinglikeflies, you give Obama's record-breaking fundraising no significance at all? Or are you just saying (unarguably) that it doesn't guarantee a win? Don't you think it's a good sign for his general election prospects -- and those of the party at large -- that he has over a million donors who haven't hit the max yet or, if they have, get to start over in the general?

Posted by: jac13 | April 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad he raised 40 million -- now he has to use it to put her away. He needs to beat her in PA. No more half-measures and defying expectations, he needs to win to show he can win.

Posted by: MShake | April 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Policywise...
McCain's 'health care plan' would mean that 'the market' decides who gets health care. What are your odds? You better be young and healthy and affluent...

"You know it's bad when arch-conservative Bill Bennett won't even endorse the Republican presidential candidate's health care plan.

It's just the latest chapter in Elizabeth Edwards' effort to explain the facts on the McCain health plan, which started Saturday at her speech to the Association of Health Care Journalists. While there, Elizabeth Edwards pointed out that she and John McCain had something in common, that neither of them [cancer survivors] would get coverage under his health plan.

This lead to the McCain campaign calling her "confused" in a piece published by the Los Angeles Times, something Edwards responded to on this blog and then this morning on the Today Show.

When Bill Bennett followed Edwards this morning, the best response he could muster was a generic assertion that the free market could cure the country's health care crisis, saying, "I think a market approach is going to be the better approach."

He added that what McCain is trying to do is, "unprecedented," and because of that, " We don't know what the market will provide." Commenting on whether all persons would be covered under the McCain plan, the best Bennett could do is to say, "It is John McCain's position that an influx of that amount of supply [under their plan], if you will, will create possibilities for people that haven't existed before. So, I don't think you can rule this out categorically."

We can't rule out that the McCain plan will help people get coverage? We don't know what the McCain plan will mean? Wow Bill, there is a ringing endorsement. And what the hell 'amount of supply' is he talking about?

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Other candidates who were able to prove they would prevail because they had more campaign funds: President John Connolly, President Phil Graham, President Rudolph Giuliani, President Mitt Romney etc. etc. etc.

Obama groupies, get over yourselves.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The telling fact of this is that the Clinton campaign won't release their numbers until right before the election. I would be willing to be that is because she took in less than 1/3 of Obama's take. This is a serious concern for Clinton since the ad buys in Philly or Pitt are going to be pricey, and I remember hearing that her daily burn rate is something like 500K. If that is true she could be in serious trouble.

Now, I'll be the first to say that money doesn't win elections (see Romney, Mitt), but lack of it can sure lose them.

Posted by: AndyR3 | April 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

afellow====I'm sure you have talked to a lot of reporters covering Obama. That, in itself, sounds like a Hillary story to me.Like who?Like where did you speak to these people and when did they have time and want to speak to you?Or are you some kind of oracle the press is naturally drawn to/ Is doctor lawyer engineer svreader your writer?

Posted by: majorteddy | April 3, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

So we'll get Hillary's March fundraising number the same day we get her and Bill's tax returns, right? (Or are you people in the MSM, who beat the hell out of Obama over the basically non-germane Wright flap, gonna let her get away with kicking the tax-return can down the road again -- this time past the increasingly close PA primary -- just like you did before Ohio and Texas?)

bsimon: I think you and I are paying for SS protection for Bill as a former pres and Hil as a member of his family (and don't forget Chelsea).

Posted by: jac13 | April 3, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't the (supposedly invincible) Clinton Machine supposed to be able to raise all the money they needed at will? This whole campaign seems to have been one instance after another of the (supposedly invincible) Clinton Machine looking like a rusted out old junker.

Posted by: jlhare1 | April 3, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

If you look at Obama's income versus output, I'd say he already has the economic argument in the bag for the general election.

Neither McCain nor Clinton have shown they are capable of even managing a campaign's finances, let alone a country's finances. McCain went belly-up last summer and Clinton seems doomed to go there before this summer. Meanwhile Obama is piling on hundreds of thousands of new donors every month (he's got to be at 1.5 million unique donors by now) and continues to bring in staggering amounts of cash without having to consider not paying for sandwiches (Clinton) or not paying his staffers for their incredibly hard work (Clinton, McCain).

I know who I'm picking on the economic argument.

Posted by: thecrisis | April 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has a four pronged attack 1)try cozying up to minotities where playing the race will hurt you. 2) Play the race card in states with a lot of hoopleheads who see blacks as the fault for them not having goos jobs. 3)Be secretive about anything you can be, you never know what the press may find. 4)Lie as much as you can get away with. You can make up stories that sound a lot better than the real thing.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Try as you persist in doing, Chris, there is no legitimate way to put "Texas" and "Clinton" and "win" in the same sentence.

A presidential candidate doesn't win or lose PARTS of states. A presidential candidate wins or loses STATES.

And OBAMA WON TEXAS.

You are not doing your journalistic reputation any favors by propping up a fake Texas victory for Clinton -- as if to slam your eyelids shut, cover your ears, and sing "lalalalalalalala" at the top of your lungs, in the face of the one irreducible fact about Texas that everyone else can see: Obama won.

Posted by: johnlumea | April 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

'Great that the Colombian president criticized Obama today'

Yes, the fascist president of Columbia, he of the rightwing paramilitary death squads. Yes, by all means, he should have a say in our election.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of spending, I wonder what it costs the US taxpayer to cover secret service protection of the candidates (and their supporters). I assume McCain has now earned SS protection as well. I know WJC enjoys SS protection for life, we know Sen Obama has been granted coverage as well. Does HRC have SS coverage? If so, is it a result of her candidacy or prior station as First Lady?

I'm just curious, but was thinking along the lines of wondering what the costs of campaigning are; if the Obama campaign is primarily sending only one VIP around, they are spending less than the Clinton campaign, who has WJC and HRC on different itineraries, not to mention Chelsea (middle initial anyone?). Could travel expenses be bleeding the Clinton campaign dry, leaving fewer dollars for advertising expenses?

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

$40,000,000!
218,000 new donors!

Solid proof that support for Sen. Obama continues to be strong despite the best efforts of Sen. Clinton to discount him.

Solid proof that the American voters will sort the issues out for themselves.

Solid proof that the American voters realize Sen. Obama, and not Rev. Wright, is running for president.

Solid proof that the American public found the media's 24/7 play of a 30 second sound bite dubious.

Posted by: txgall | April 3, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Journalists covering the Obama campaign have told me he is an empty suit, especially in foreign affairs. His statement today about the government's trade bill with Colombia proves this. He is uniformed. This is scary. When are Americans going to realize this guy is a menace to the U.S. and the world. Great that the Colombian president criticized Obama today. Isn't it time the media do the same? This guy is like the teflon man.

Posted by: afellow1 | April 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama's huge fundraising numbers in the primary campaign mean that he can also raise more money in the general election. I'm sure the superdelegates have noticed this.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Do not get fooled. Obama can continue to outspend Hillary twice/three times and she will continue to forge on with her message. If you think that this will be a deciding factor, look at the Republican candidates. Hillary just needs to continue to use her funds wisely!!! She is raising enough to keep her ALIVE and that is what matters. Let Obama use all of this and then account to us for this waste!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, CC for the news and analysis. Now put it into perspective--how much has McCain raised for March. Here's February:

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain raised $11 million in February and ended it with $8 million in the bank, according to a new report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also had $4.3 million in debt, mostly for a loan that has become the focus of a stalemate between his campaign and the FEC.

The $11 million total marked a second month of solid fundraising for McCain, but it still lagged significantly behind the prodigious amounts raised by Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both had not yet filed their February reports, but Obama has said he raised $55 million and Clinton has said she raised $35 million for the month."

And here's the RNC... doesn't look like much help coming from there. So it looks like McCain is going to be depending almost entirely on secret, soft money 527s...

"There has been a lot of discussion recently about how the National Republican Congressional Committee had been having some difficulties raising money, which would make it harder for them to defend vulnerable seats in the House of Representatives. It appears as though their inability to raise money at the NRCC isn't their only financial problem because the FBI has now been called in to investigate potential fraud involving falsified audit reports and possibly a large amount money missing from their bank accounts."

Here is the story -- Obama money coming from private citizens. McCain's money will come from corporate lobbyists.

That tells you everything you need to know about who is beholding to whom.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"As the Clinton campaign is fond of pointing out, she was drastically outspent by Obama in Ohio and Texas and managed to win the primaries in each of those states in spite of that differential."

This is the kind of talking point that deserves to be challenged every time it is made. Yes, Obama spent more than Clinton in OH & TX. Yes, Clinton received more primary votes in both those states. But is that the whole story? No, its not. Perhaps its relevant to also report that Obama did significantly narrow the gap in both states. Perhaps its relevant to point out that a year ago people in OH & TX barely knew who he was, while Sen Clinton enjoyed strong name-recognition. Isn't it relevant to note that the guy came basically out of nowhere to be competitive with one of the most well-known politicians in the US today?

Posted by: bsimon | April 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

We have heard from secondary sources that Sen. Clinton had paid her previously reported debts during this week. We can not find confirmation.

Has she, or has she not, paid the outstanding, past due, debts?

Is her cash on hand available for the Primary and not the General Election known to the press?

Has Sen. Obama continued to husband his funds in a way that will allow him to make the big thrust in Indiana?

Does either Senator speak Spanish well enough to campaign on the ground in San Juan?

When all this money has been spent, will the Democrats claim they sparked the economic recovery, without raising deficit spending?

Could that be the motive for extending this race toward infinity, and beyond?

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | April 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Looks like you do read the comment section -- all the Obama supporters bashing you on HRC's Texas "win" seem to have changed your reporting a bit!

Lots of Obama TV ads here in central PA and very few Clinton ads. I don't know if it will make much difference though.

Posted by: mnteng | April 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

ooooooooooohoo HRC
Dropped

Posted by: mha31353 | April 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

That is amazing- his apparently superior online presence has to be assisting with this in this day and age.

Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83

Posted by: davidmwe | April 3, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It means that he can bludgeon a persistent HRC all he wants. Lots of ads shaming her into a withdrawal are possible with that loot.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | April 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Way back at the beginning, HRC supposedly had such a huge warchest everyone else was left in the dust. What happened to it?

The Republicans are the ones who should be worried about Obama's continued success at fundraising. Seems to me alot of Republicans are sitting on their wallets so far. Think Mitt can get the VP slot if he opens up his?

Posted by: nclwtk | April 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company