Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
News that Senator Barack Obama had raised at least $25 million for his presidential campaign during the first quarter has now put the spotlight on how Senator Hillary Clinton's camp may feel. Just a few days ago, the $26 million Clinton raised during the quarter was touted as "historic" and "record-setting," but now Obama's take is getting the ink - the NY Times' headline is Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton while the Post and Daily News put the news on their covers.
Obama's $25 million has come from 100,000 supporters, while Clinton's $26 million is from 50,000 supporters, which points to Obama's fund-raising strategy of bigger events with smaller donations while Clinton has gone after fewer but donors who will pony up more. Obama plans to spend $23.9 million of the money for the primary, while Clinton's primary spending numbers are unclear but she did transfer $10 million from her Senate campaign war chest. Hmm, maybe Clinton's people are re-thinking her expensive Senate re-election spending.
Clinton supporter John Castimidis tells the Daily News, "Anybody with $25 million in the bank has to be taken seriously," but predicted, "By the end of the year, [Hillary Clinton will raise] $100 million." And Clinton's campaign even released a statement about Obama's fund-raising numbers: "We are thrilled with our historic fundraising success and congratulate Senator Obama and the entire Democratic field on their fundraising, which demonstrates the overwhelming desire for change in our country."
Fun fact: Obama raised $6.9 million online, while Clinton raised $4.2 million via the Interwebs. The National Review has a piece about what the money means to the 2008 presidential race, while Daily Kos looked at how the fund-raising numbers for both parties show where the energy is.
Photograph of the junior Senator from New York at a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday by Matthew Putney/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
yikes! that picture is scary!
Jeez,
So that's the new game? money money money?
who ever has the most $$ is president?
I mean, obviously it's a factor, but can't we just pretend for a little while that the elections are about policies and lawmaking?
Seriously. I mean how many stories have you read about candidates fund raising? Now how many about their positions and plans? Yay US politics!
Um, you guys do know that they need to raise money to get their positions and plans out to the most people? TV, radio, print, travel ain't free. And the first primary is *next year*, so they have a lot of time to get their ideas out to the world.
So get off your high horse.
They're being nice to each other because one is going to simply run under the other as a Vice Presidential candidate.
I do realize they need to raise money, obviously they need it to run. I'm not bitching about the candidates, I'm bitching about the journalism of "OMG so much money! who's winning?"
My point is, that this amount of press for raising money is ridiculous and damaging.
I feel like I'm watching CRIBS or something.
I'm tired of the press playing elections like sporting events and the 'Hillary Vs. Obama' match up is now all about massive sums of money, which honestly depresses the hell out of me.
I can't help thinking about how much of it will just be spent repeating, "no really, I DO support the troops, just not the war".
Do you think we'll see this many front page spreads when they're talking about repairing our foreign relations? or budget agendas?
I doubt it.
Do you think we'll see this many front page spreads when they're talking about repairing our foreign relations? or budget agendas? I doubt it.
The Post might not give "clever" headlines to their policy ideas, but the hopefully substantive debates will be on primetime broadcast television and I'm pretty sure plenty of voters will see them.
There are 300 million people in this country and, like it or not, it costs a fortune to run a Presidential campaign. I think building a successful fundraising operation is as a good test of leadership skills as any for the candidates. The fact that the two Democratic front-runners have done so well is nothing to scoff at or be depressed about.
Unless you're a Republican, in which case you'd have plenty to get depressed about.
Hillary has no positions other than to bash George W. Bush. Not that Bush doesn't deserve it but he isn't on the ballot. This is her wakeup call. She does need to spend the money now and actually articulate (OMG I used the "A" word) her positions. Maybe she thinks the Bush bashing is helping her raise money but her pals in Hollywood and the Hamptons are already doing that. Obama's numbers show he is resonating with individual donors. Again, it should be a wakeup call.
as for why the media is focusing on the money, it's because none of these idiots running for President (on either side) have said much. Wouldn't it be great if one of the candidates came right out and said how they plan to pay for health insurance they plan to create for 40 million people?
Yeah, I agree with pres hummer. It seems like Clinton has a bunch of rabid clintonite trustifundians on the coasts while obama is more of a grassroots effort. Also he's an Illionois senator, making him more appealing to the interior of the country, particularaly the perenially democratic Midwest (or at least the great lakes regions). Clinton doesn't have that.
As much as I hate all the attention on and energy in the campaign so far away from the actual primaries (which themselves are too far away from the actual election), talking about money right now does actually mean something. Money and polling are the only indications at this stage as to who has support, and since we are so far away, the polling machines aren't yet geared up for constant updates. Monetary updates only come every few months so of course funding and donor data is going to be big news, especially when you have two major candidates raising such large amounts of money (and such a discrepancy in the number of people a similar amount of money was donated by - Obama donors outnumber Clinton donors about 2 to 1). The question remains as to whether they can sustain the level/rate of donations through the next year and a half or if they will run out.
Much of Obama's internet fundraising have come from the young, which since 1972 have shown again and again that they just don't vote in significant numbers (except for American Idol). Sorry, kiddies, it's the Boomers who will pick your next president. Now eat your vegetables.
And Matty, Hillary Clinton was born in Illinois, a MidWestern State in the Great Lakes region, so yes, she does have that.
if the democrats want to hand the republicans a win in 08 they will run either of these two (and thats even with the current state of republican politics). Realistically, whether the idealists want to believe it or not, both are completely unelectable. The party is going to have to come up with better alternatives.
Realistically, whether the idealists want to believe it or not, both are completely unelectable.
And the Republicans have an "electable" alternative?
Both of these candidates would obviously do a fine job. At this point if Americans can't look beyond race or gender in picking a president, then perhaps it's time they finally wallow in the cesspool they have created. I for one don't particularly give a shit anymore.
Hey Hal, just because they haven't voted in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get them to the polls. I try to get my friends to pay attention and vote; we have just as much ownership in this country and probably more at stake (our futures being a tiny bit longer).
Why don't I want Boomers having total say over the election? Because I certainly don't think they have my best interests at heart. So instead of just lamenting, some of us are trying to be proactive. Perhaps this is something to be hoped for and celebrated rather than dismissed.
Much of Obama's internet fundraising have come from the young, which since 1972 have shown again and again that they just don't vote in significant numbers (except for American Idol).
That just isn't accurate. While the total number of eligible young voters actually declined between the last two Presidential election cycles, the number of youth voters increased dramatically in 2004. 14 million more young people voted than in 2000. Right-wingers just trot out these myths before elections in an attempt to make young people think that their votes don't matter.
That 14 million number is wrong, that was the total increase in voters in 2004. 5 million of those were young people. And in 2006, 2 million more young people voted than in the previous mid-term election. Anyway, these trends clearly show that young people actually are voting in larger numbers and making more of a difference in the results of elections.
hs, that is unfortunately how politics works... leave your idealism at the door and try to get someone in who is both competent and will fit the electable mold with the majority of the country. I'm sorry, but its time for the party to get real. I for one would like to see the democrats take the presidency in '08. This is a pivotal time in the country and there is no room to experiment with unknowns that will cause a loss and a continuation of the current policies.
And Matty, Hillary Clinton was born in Illinois, a MidWestern State in the Great Lakes region, so yes, she does have that.
And Al Gore was from Tennessee and couldn't carry the state in 2000. To think Hillary resonates in the Midwest is lunacy anyway. She's lucky the California primary was moved up to February so that she can snag those delegates before her losses in Iowa and the South catch up with her.
And the Republicans have an "electable" alternative?
Giuliani is polling ahead of Clinton. McCain is imploding over supporting the Iraq war so it really comes down to Giuliani and Romney.
[19]: is Rudy really going to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of Republican primaries? Third marriage, pro-choice, children not supporting him, etc... And for Romney, check out this week's Doonesburys for some interesting points.
It doesn't matter how you poll among those who will vote on you in November if you can't get the nomination.
hs, that is unfortunately how politics works... leave your idealism at the door and try to get someone in who is both competent and will fit the electable mold with the majority of the country. I'm sorry, but its time for the party to get real. I for one would like to see the democrats take the presidency in '08.
Todd, I used to feel the same way. However if a Democratic candidate has to be white, male and protestant to get the vote, then we as a country are inherently flawed and don't DESERVE the best candidate. At this point in my life I'm not going to support a candidate simply because a penis and white skin makes him "palatable" to rednecks and other losers.