Skip to main content

March numbers:

Barack Obama raised more than $30 million in the month of March, a campaign official told TIME on Tuesday.

Though the official would not provide an exact number, he did say, "The number starts with a three and we are still counting. It's in the 30s."

[...]

As of Tuesday night, the Clinton campaign had not released its March totals. But one Clinton campaign adviser hinted that the New York senator's total for the month will come close to $20 million. That estimate could not be independently confirmed.

Remember that after debts, Obama entered March with $33 million that could be spent in the primary period, while Clinton's net cash on hand for the primary (after accounting for her mounting debts) was a paltry $3 million.  

The cash imbalance shows up in the campaigns' spending on television advertising.  As Chuck Todd pointed out yesterday, last week Obama outspent Clinton on television 5-1.

Were Clinton to finally acknowledge that she won't be the nominee, step aside, and let Obama focus on defeating John McCain, Obama would be able to outspend McCain by an even larger margin than he's outspending Clinton.  Early speculation has McCain raising less than $13 million.  McCain has not been able to bring the Bush fundraising network together on his behalf:

Even though he all but secured the Republican nomination by mid-February, Mr. McCain has so far managed to enlist only a fraction of the heavyweight bundlers of campaign contributions who helped drive President Bush’s two runs for the White House, an examination of Mr. McCain’s fund-raising network shows.

Well over half of the top fund-raisers for Mr. Bush, who raised a record $274 million for him in the 2004 primary season, stayed on the sidelines through this year’s Republican nominating contests. Others wound up working for Rudolph W. Giuliani, who signed up the most top Bush fund-raisers, and Mitt Romney, who had about the same number as Mr. McCain.

The dearth of Pioneers and Rangers, the elite fund-raisers for Mr. Bush who collected more than $100,000 or $200,000 respectively for his re-election bid in 2004, is illustrative of just how far Mr. McCain has to go to build up his financial operation.

McCain's struggles aren't due to any failure by Bush to throw his support to McCain.  Unlike the Senate and Congressional campaign committees, where Democrats are slaughtering the Republicans in fundraising, the RNC has a very large cash advantage over the DNC.  Bush is working to keep that advantage:

With Bush leading the way, the RNC has taken in $108 million during this election cycle, and had $25 million available cash at the end of February, records show. The comparable figures for the Democratic National Committee: $62 million raised, with $4.8 million unspent.

While those aren't Obama-esque numbers, it's money on the Republican side that will certainly be put to good use in the weeks and months ahead.

At the same time, the Democratic candidates will be doing more spending than saving, buying television advertisements in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana and traveling extensively.

The White House regularly schedules presidential fundraisers to dovetail with out-of-town speeches and events. Last Thursday, for example, Bush took Air Force One to Dayton, Ohio to deliver a speech on the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism. Rather than return directly to Washington, he made stops in Bellbrook, Ohio and Sewickley, Pa. to raise money for the respective states' Republican committees at events in private homes.

Were he not encumbered with having to attend to Clinton's futile attempt to wrest away the nomination, he would be able to raise money for the DNC, and use his resources—not just cash, but also his time—against McCain.  Instead he has to continue to hold off Clinton.  

Why, if it's mathematically implausible that she could overtake Obama in the delegate count, is she staying in the race?  As I've explained before, the only way she can become the nominee would be for something extraordinary to happen to Obama, something so awful that just about the entire Democratic electorate would conclude that he had become an unsuitable nominee.  Now we have another possible explanation:

While some inside the campaign are concerned about whether Clinton will have the funds to match Obama in radio and TV advertising buys through May, others are worried about a different horizon. One Clinton adviser wondered whether that what he called the "massive debt" was beginning to hang over not simply the campaign but Clinton's political future. How, this adviser asked, can the campaign climb out of "the debt hole if we don't win this whole thing?" Facing a Senate re-election campaign in 2012, he noted, Clinton's choice is daunting: "If you have a $10 million debt when this thing is over, she has to pay it off, and then, four years later, raise $30 to $40 million" to wage a re-election campaign.

I'm inclined to believe that Clinton and her inner circle are still clinging to the increasingly fanciful hope that Obama will melt down and everyone will turn to her as the nominee.  But if she continues to spend more than she raises, debt could become an unwelcome factor in her decision making, and one that could prolong the nomination battle and prevent us from directing our full resources against John McCain.

UPDATE At The Politico, Ben Smith reports that an Obama spokesman, discussing the article in Time about Obama's March fundraising, said "I don’t think it’s accurate.".  That doesn't mean it isn't accurate, nor does it mean that it is accurate.  We'll apparently have to wait until tomorrow for an official statement from the Obama campaign.  

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:34 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  HRC and Debt (8+ / 0-)

    Someone said that she paid herself back her $5 million loan. If she can pay herself $5 million, why can't she pay those small business owners?

    We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

    by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:40 AM PDT

  •  But Hillary gets lots of free press (7+ / 0-)

    I hear there's some videos of her in Bosnia that are extremely popular on YouTube now.

    She voted for the war.

    by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:50 AM PDT

    •  consider changing your sig? (0+ / 0-)

      I am an Obama supporter, first off.

      just wanted to point to a diary currently on the rec list which suggests a good way to start reconciling the Obama/Hillary supporters split is to cut out the anti-candidate sig lines.

      just a suggestion. we can keep supporting Obama without continuing to rub it in Hillary supporters' faces online.

      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

      by 2501 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peglyn, Inland, Muzikal203
        How about:

        Obama is the one who didn't vote for the war.

        --

        The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

        by DemCurious on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL! n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Julia C

          We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

          by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Or this one. (0+ / 0-)

          Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times.

          by ichibon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perfect illustration of how an olive branch (0+ / 0-)

            would be treated: give up a legitimate point, and get an illegitimate point back.  

            She voted for the war.

            by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  don't be sucked in (0+ / 0-)

              of course Clinton supporters are bitter. THEY'RE LOSING.

              they aren't in a position to be nice to us, yet, but we don't need to be shitty to them any more to win.

              I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

              by 2501 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So this isn't true? (0+ / 0-)

              Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times

              Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times.

              by ichibon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:58:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama, not cleaning up HRC's fuckups fast enough. (0+ / 0-)

                Why won't Obama cut off funding, and thereby clean up HRC's mistakes in giving Bush a blank check?

                Well, he did, for one.  But only after all the other means of cleaning up HRC's fuckups failed.

                HRC gave bush the blank check to put 160,000 troops in Iraq, and her supporters want to know why Obama isn't rushing to cut off their food and ammo in order to fix her fuckup.

                Yah, thanks for reaching out in typical HRC fashion.  SOOO full of shit.

                She voted for the war.

                by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've been listening to the RW way too much. (0+ / 0-)

                  Cutting off funds just means they come home. Its really not good for democrats to spread RW talking points,

                  Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times.

                  by ichibon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's idiotic. (0+ / 0-)

                    Cutting off funds does NOT mean they come home.  Cutting off funds means they don't get fed and supplied, and then silly people ASSUME that Bush won't leave our people with their asses hanging out.  Like he was so good with armor and stuff and would never use our troops for mere politics.

                    If HRC believes that cutting off funds magically brings troops home, why has she been voting for it every time except the last one?  For the same reason she voted for the war?

                    I know why Obama voted for funding.  Because he wouldn't gamble on Bush's good will without exhausting every other avenue TO FIX HILLARY"S FUCKUP.

                    But I guess you'd rather blame him than HRC, who wrote the blank check to begin with.  Yeah, I can see all the fair and balanced treatment we can expect from HRC fans.

                    She voted for the war.

                    by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:05:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you honestly think any leader could get away (0+ / 0-)

                      with leaving the military in Iraq without food, shelter, ammo? That is the most stupid right wing scare tactic I have ever heard. I laughed at Hannity and O'rilley when they were raving on that, the same as you're doing now. Get this straight: No General would leave their people defenceless in Iraq or any other place else, and to even suggest they would, is the dumbest comment ever, an officer of any branch of service, doing as you say would be court-martialed,  and would probably end up in Levenworth over it. You really should think things through a little more before you post them, because you are really showing your ignorance this time.

                      Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times.

                      by ichibon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, Bush is a GREAT GUY! IYO. (0+ / 0-)

                        He wouldn't just let a few units go without in order to make political hay out of it.  Nobody would suffer, no no no no.  He's not that kind of guy.  He's all about the troops.  

                        I guess that's the same sort of naivete that HRC is claiming when she says she thought voting for the war wasn't voting for the war.  Except she was lying.  You might actually be that dense.

                        And the bottom line is, Obama HAS voted for defunding.  He's just not dumb enough to think it's risk free to our troops and didn't do it the very first thing.  He tried other stuff first.  He's STILL right.  

                        But he's not cleaning up HRC's fuckups fast enough, so vote for fuckup.  Yeah, that makes sense.

                        She voted for the war.

                        by Inland on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Repeat: (0+ / 0-)

                          I laughed at Hannity and O'rilley when they were raving on that, the same as you're doing now.

                          Obama voted to fund the occupation, many, many times.

                          by ichibon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess you're wrong often, then. (0+ / 0-)

                            Hannity and O'Reilly, knowing Bush, know what would happen.  Bush wouldn't pull them out, he'd let them suffer.  They are just getting ready to blame democrats.  So what's you're point? That we can turn the suffering of our soldiers to political advantage? Or that Bush's a great guy, he wouldn't let it happen?

                            HRC: wrote Bush a blank check for the war, and for funding.  HRC Fan: "Why isn't Obama fixing HRC's mistakes?"

                            Here's a clue: don't promote the person making the fuckups (HRC) if you want people to STOP her and FIX her mistakes.

                            She voted for the war.

                            by Inland on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh noes! (0+ / 0-)

                      You just made me agree with a HRC supporter!

                      I prefer Obama as a person, but if I put his voting record and Hillary's in front of you, sans names, how confident would you be of identifying them correctly?

                      --

                      The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

                      by DemCurious on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Ugh. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm sorry, but if reconciliation means stop campaigning, if pointing out relevant policy differences is "rubbing it in", then I say: hey, you first.

        Me, I suggest a better start is for both sides to commit to not comparing McCain favorably to the other candidate.  Let me know if you get a thumbs up on that one.

        She voted for the war.

        by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I would imagine that between them... (6+ / 0-)

    ...Bill and Hillary likely have the resources available to pay off most of this debt themselves.

    I don't know that for sure, of course, because she won't release her tax returns.

    I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

    by turnover on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM PDT

  •  Can't she "suspend" her campaign? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, seabrook, Muzikal203

    That way, if Obama did suddenly melt down, she could still step in, but it would save us all this crap in the meantime

    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

    by 2501 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

  •  The easiest solution (5+ / 0-)

    Approach the Obama campaign, offer to step aside if that campaign will help retire her debt, and move on. That'd be good value for Obama too. He'd spend less buying Hillary's debt than he would campaigning against her.

    •  Is that legal? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

      by turnover on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HRC paid Vilsack's campaign debt, didn't she? nt (4+ / 0-)

        She voted for the war.

        by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:41:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I really don't know. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mayan

          I've not really heard of money being transferred from the coffers of one campaign to another. That's why I was asking...

          I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

          by turnover on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm thinking you're right (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't see your post before I posted mine, but that's my memory.  There was a bit of an outcry about it, but nothing major.

          I would expect more in these days and times.

          NetrootNews coming soon!

          by ksh01 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She agreed to, don't know if it happened yet (0+ / 0-)

          from the AP

          (03-27) 17:47 PDT Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --

          Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to help one-time candidate Tom Vilsack, who endorsed her on Monday, as he seeks to retire a campaign debt of more than $400,000.

          Clinton spokesman Mark Daley said he was uncertain how Clinton would go about raising money for Vilsack, but he conceded that at some point, she would have to contact her supporters. "Someone in her shop is going to have to reach out," Daley said.

          Vilsack and his wife, Christie, endorsed Clinton in her bid for the Democratic nomination at an Iowa news conference on Monday. Daley said there was no connection between the fundraising and the endorsement.

          "There was no quid pro quo," Daley said. "They have a long history and if she could be helpful she wants to be helpful."

          The help for Vilsack comes as one of Clinton's top supporters in New Hampshire disputed reports of another promise in exchange for an endorsement. Bill Shaheen, in an interview with The Associated Press, said suggestions that he withheld his endorsement of Clinton until he was promised an ambassadorship were wrong.

          "Did she promise (an ambassadorship)? No," Shaheen said. "That's not how I work. I don't think Senator Clinton is thinking that far down the road and I would be disappointed if she was."

          Shaheen joined the Clinton campaign last week as co-chairman of her national and state campaigns. After the endorsement, Shaheen met with bloggers and told them if Clinton wins the White House, he wants to be part of her team negotiating peace in the Middle East.

          Last month, a key black Democratic leader in South Carolina negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Clinton's campaign, a development that came to light when state Sen. Darrell Jackson endorsed the presidential hopeful.

          The campaign denied there was any deal made for Jackson's endorsement.

          Obama is gonna drink your milkshake

          by LoLoLaLa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's not quite the same thing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            The article sounds like she was going to help find donors for him, and not necessarily give him her own campaigns money.

            Government didn't get smaller under the Republicans; it just lost its stature.

            by Andhakari on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think its legal for her to do that (0+ / 0-)

              As a donor, I'd be pissed if I gave someone money and they turned around and gave it to someone else.

              But she can, for instance, send out a campaign email to her people asking them to go to his website and give him money.

              When I said "she agreed to" I was meaning, agreed to help him clear his debts.

              Obama is gonna drink your milkshake

              by LoLoLaLa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Adam? (0+ / 0-)

        Hillary Clinton: Running on Fumes!

        by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  didn't that happen between Vilsack and Clinton? (3+ / 0-)

      I'm pretty hazy on the details, but this solution sounds familiar....

      I think it would be an excellent way to resolve, but the outcry might be huge from the republicans.

      Is it considered an appropriate way to deal with a rival's debt?

      NetrootNews coming soon!

      by ksh01 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I had the same thought upon reading this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bipolar Disorder Democrat

      Would seem to me a win-win solution to this quandary.  I've given a fair chunk of coin to Obama, if he used it for this, I'd say it was money well spent.

      "Better beans and bacon in peace than cakes and ale in fear" ~~Aesop

      by aztecraingod on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He can't buy her debt. (0+ / 0-)

      All he can do is make some phone calls to his big donors to ask them to max out to her to help with her debt.

  •  DHinMI, I thought your headline was insane or (5+ / 0-)

    a mistake for a moment there, but after actually reading your analysis, I have to wonder if you aren't correct.  Maybe they are staying in just to pay the bills . . . although the remaining states are not particularly deep pocket areas.

    You're my kind of stupid.

    by SteamPunkX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM PDT

  •  Can she self-finance? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mogolori, mkfarkus, turnover, Muzikal203

    Not Romney-esque $100 million, but $10 million in self-contributions?

    Financially, given Bill's income, they probably could afford it, but could she do it and still be able to convince supers that she's viable?

    -dms

    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:34 AM PDT

  •  McCain has href=3million? Wow! He can outspend (7+ / 0-)

    Taft in the general with that kind of money.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM PDT

  •  psst your tags are showing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClaudeB, SteamPunkX

    href="3 million.

    Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:01 AM PDT

  •  Evidently those Obama numbers given out by (7+ / 0-)

    Time are incorrect.  Per Ben Smith at Politico:

    "We have not finished an accounting – I don’t know honestly wehre time got that number," he said. "I don’t think it’s accurate. Only two people in the campaign know that number: our campaign manager and the finance director," Gibbs said on a conference call with reporters just now.

    "We hope to provide a number tomorrow," he said.

  •  Ben has an update (8+ / 0-)

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says a Time report that his campaign raised between $30 and $40 million isn't accurate, and that they'll have the number -- which they're very good at keeping secret -- tomorrow.

    "We have not finished an accounting – I don’t know honestly wehre time got that number," he said. "I don’t think it’s accurate. Only two people in the campaign know that number: our campaign manager and the finance director," Gibbs said on a conference call with reporters just now.

    "We hope to provide a number tomorrow," he said.

    "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected." - Barack Obama (3.18.08)

    by lapis on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:16 AM PDT

  •  She's delusional - she's like a leader in their (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Beese

    bunker, bombs crashing all around them and enemy troops at the entrance and they still believe they're going to pull it out.

    the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

    by Shane Hensinger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM PDT

    •  "Your generals have betrayed you!" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shane Hensinger

      That's exactly the tenor over at die-hard oases like Corrente whenever a new traitor to the Holy Cause exposes their treachery.

      Here's someone vowing to boycott Air America for daring  to mock Her Hillaryness.

      http://correntewire.com/...

      Preventing Obama from securing 42.7% of the remaining delegates, and/or convincing Obama delegates to flip to Clinton, are both fantasies." - Chris Bowers

      by Joe Beese on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If HRC is hoping for a melt down the most (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, SteamPunkX

    honorable thing to do is to "suspend her campaign."  If something does happen she can always jump back in.  This is not a difficult scenario for her to understand, that is why I do not think her staying in the race is about hoping for a melt down, but is instead something different.

    •  I've suggested this before and got a ton (0+ / 0-)

      of shit from HRC supporters.

      That is the honorable (to the PARTY and the COUNTRY) thing to do ... but to be honest I have not been very impressed by the level of honor coming out of Ballston in the past 6 months.

      No quarter. No surrender.

      by hegemony57 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama Campaign Says Time WRONG on $$$ (6+ / 0-)

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says a Time report that his campaign raised between $30 and $40 million isn't accurate, and that they'll have the number -- which they're very good at keeping secret -- tomorrow.

    "We have not finished an accounting – I don’t know honestly where Time got that number," he said. "I don’t think it’s accurate. Only two people in the campaign know that number: our campaign manager and the finance director," Gibbs said on a conference call with reporters just now.

    "We hope to provide a number tomorrow," he said.

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM PDT

    •  Whoops...you beat me... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter

      by 24 seconds.

      "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think the spending numbers are indicative: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, seabrook

      probably more so than the contribustions.  Obama's outspending HRC in PA massively in major media buys.  He's got it.  If she had it, she;d be spending it on her most recently declared firewalls.

      She voted for the war.

      by Inland on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am in Indiana--no Clinton ads at all (0+ / 0-)

        I agree that we can look at the spending.  I am in Indiana and haven't seen a single Clinton ad on TV, but I see Obama quite a bit.  I have seen at least three different ads from him, one about getting us jobs, one about his background, and another about the economy, I think.  If he is spending here at the same time he is spending a bucketload of cash in PA, then he is doing very well indeed.

  •  Caveat: Ben Smith... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, discocarp, Texanomaly

    says that the Obama campaign says that the $30 million figure is inaccurate.

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says a Time report that his campaign raised between $30 and $40 million isn't accurate, and that they'll have the number -- which they're very good at keeping secret -- tomorrow.

    Politico - 30 Million is Inaccurate

    "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM PDT

  •  Hey, I suggested this earlier! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bogleg, SteamPunkX

    In this diary here.

    Of course, I didn't do all the research and stuff, and I was only half serious...

  •  Does anyone really want a president (4+ / 0-)

    who can't stay in a realistic budget?

    We've had one for 7 years...

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

  •  I contribute to Clinton debt relief IF... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, hilllady, Muzikal203

    she drops out on or around May 6.  If the drags it our... sorry not one penny.

    I will not vote for "that woman"

    by RedStateDem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM PDT

  •  If she's spending more than she's taking in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dksbook, Texanomaly, Muzikal203

    how will continuing the campaign help her erase the deficit?  If she's down by a similar (or likely larger) pledged delegate margin a month from now, and the SD's continue to move towards Obama by the current 10:1 ratio, who will donate to her campaign?

    If a business is losing $, it doesn't stay in business to pay off past debt--it closes its doors and stiffs its creditors.  I suspect that we will see that happen here--the main question is when it will happen.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:31 AM PDT

  •  Obama/Lee Hamilton? (0+ / 0-)

    Hmmmm........

    Makes you wonder.

    •  please no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smeesq, 23Progressive

      Hamilton is too old, too wishy-washy, too "Broder" like, and too entrenched in defending the inherent beauty, brilliance and innocence of the D.C. establishment to offer anything to Obama. If you want someone who will be a milquetoasty wet blanket, he's your man. Otherwise, let's keep him out in that nice, quiet pasture.

      "Who the hell you gonna nuke?" -- Mike Gravel

      by Taylor on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Funding could be what eventually sinks HRC (5+ / 0-)

    I'm surprised there hasn't been more media about this or the fact that she's been recalcitrant about paying her debts to small businesses.  I wouldn't think that kind of irresponsible money management would go over very well in Middle America.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM PDT

  •  But isn't the debt going to increase (0+ / 0-)

    substantially the longer she stays in?  At some point, wouldn't it be wiser to cut her losses?  She's got to pay Mark Penn alone a couple million a month.

    This primary has become not one damned thing after another, but rather one damned thing over and over.

    by middleagedhousewife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM PDT

  •  OK, (6+ / 0-)

    So the candidate's primary win is verging on the mathematically impossible, fundraising is anemic, the opponent's spending can't be matched, and the candidate is sticking around hoping something will happen to the opponent.

    Are we talking about Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee?

    100-foot tall robotic Obama vs. mini-Ditka. Who wins?

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM PDT

    •  Have you been reading Halperin? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nose, droogie6655321, seabrook

      His interview with Hillary where she (supposedly, I'm not sure how much I trust anything in Time) indicated that she thinks that the Obama support is an illusion, and will disappear just in time for McCain to get elected, explains a lot of the inexplicable about this.

      You're my kind of stupid.

      by SteamPunkX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At the start of this race, (8+ / 0-)

        When I supported Edwards, I feared that Obama's support was thin and would evaporate almost overnight after some kind of gaffe or minor scandal. What can I say? I was a jilted Deaniac, and didn't want to be wrong again.

        But I underestimated the depth of Obama's support. For that, I could be forgiven as many people didn't give him that much of a shot early on.

        However, clinging to this belief even after all he has shown us -- fending off attacks, gaining endorsements, winning contest after contest -- is verging on the delusional.

        100-foot tall robotic Obama vs. mini-Ditka. Who wins?

        by droogie6655321 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting POV (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mkfarkus, droogie6655321

          I'm one of the few who can claim to have been eyeing Obama for POTUS over two years ago. But I have the DC advantage, and in the case I'm not talking about the political insider's view.

          After his convention speech and books I was paying attention to him, but then a bunch of the staff of my office--all the black secretaries essentially--went to a rally for him. And this was two years ago, so I had a hint what was coming.

          The only thing startling to me is that other white people agree with me!

          You're my kind of stupid.

          by SteamPunkX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah actualvotes are not real, her perception of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dksbook, The Nose

        reality is.  Talk about someone who divorced from reality, we need an intervention.

    •  Well, Huckabee stayed in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, mkfarkus

      on pennies a minute.  Hillary is staying in on $100. bills a second.  BIG difference.

  •  stats with a 3? (0+ / 0-)

    so it could be $300,000,000?

    If the solution has never been to look at yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?

    by glutz78 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM PDT

  •  The "get out" diaries are getting stale (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    23Progressive

    at this point.   Hillary Clinton is not getting out, and she may in fact win.

    Regardless, however, the voting contest will be over by June 3.   The last states voting that require a significantly heavy media spend are May 20 (7 weeks from now).  

    This sort of diary makes for interesting idle chatter during some downtime between primaries, but it doesn't really change anything.    

    On June 4, or maybe earlier if a candidate goes on a run, we will have most of the information needed to make the best decision possible about the nomination:

    - Which candidate holds the lead in pledged and endorsed superdelegates? - Which candidate has won the most popular votes? - Which candidate if either do polls suggest would be better able to defeat John McCain?

    Perhaps the answers on these questions will be sufficiently clear to avoid tackling the last critical question - FL and MI.   But if there isn't a clear conclusion out of these top 3 questions, then we will have to address the fourth.  

    In reality, I think that it would be better to address FL/MI before June 3, so that we can quickly resolve this.  It shouldn't be so difficult.  At one end, a reasonable outcome would be to let FL votes stand as is and allocate uncommitteds to Obama, with delegate counts following.  At another would be some sort of compromise awarding delegates at half their value.   Why not simply get this out of the way so that we can have clarity by June 4?

    •  She cannot win, it is mathmatically impossible (0+ / 0-)

      The only way she can win is with a Huckabee "miracle"

    •  What is clarity in your mind? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      23Progressive

      From a DNC rules (you know, the ones that were agreed to by the DNC rules committee) the ONLY count that matters is total delegates.

      I know that the HRC campaign has been spreading a lot of FUD these last few months to muddy the waters, but there you have it.

      It's plain and simple delegate math.  End of story.

      So while the HRC campaign has the right to run this to May or June or July or to the convention for that matter so long as Obama doesn't have the 2025 he needs to claim it, my question is, to what end?

      If the numbers were reversed and the Obama campaign was nearly mathematically elminated so that only a Clinton meltdown could propel him to the nomination I would advocate a "suspension" of the campaign.  Have him hold fire.  Stop forcing both Dem candidates to spend money on the primaries and start focusing that cash on John McCain.

      That would be the smart and strategic thing to do for the party (and by extension for a more sane and progressive American domestic and foreign policy) and the nation.

      No quarter. No surrender.

      by hegemony57 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's All Bullshit Except Two Figures (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, Joe Beese

      Pledged delegates, and unpledged delegates.  "Popular vote" doesn't matter at all in the forumla for who wins the nomination.  And with the lead he's likely to have in pledged delegates, and the number of unpledged delegates who've already committed to him, and those likely to commit to him coming up, he's the nominee.  

      The rest of it is ridiculous bullshit from Mark Penn et al, and doesn't matter.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ActivatedbyBush

      Again, I think Barack has the chance to be our greatest President since Lincoln, so yeah, I'm a supporter...

      but if she has parity with him in fundraising and wins Indiana and Pennsylvania - all three possible - WHY would she get out before the convention?  You never quit with momentum.  Ever.  And she will have it and unfortunately I don't see what takes it away from her between Indiana and the convention.

      I LOVE this site, but my god, there must be more to talk about than stale news and speculation about this primary.  Let's either talk about what else is going on in the world or how we can have an impact or the special elections coming up or McCain or how we can pressure some Superdelegates to endorse, etc.

      In other words...just news from now on.  No more speculation.  

  •  I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is worried.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkfarkus, Muzikal203

    ..about whether she could win a Senate seat in 2012.

    •  Bill's getting testy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mkfarkus

      Bill supposedly went ballistic at a private CA superdelegate meeting.

      The stress may be taking a toll and people can do and say really stupid things when they are overcome by stress. Let's hope he or she doesn't say something that will put her Senate seat in jeopardy. I would like Hillary to remain in the Senate.

      STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA! STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

      by MT in Austin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill's comments were brilliant (0+ / 0-)

        The Obama campaign has done a good job of smearing Bill Clinton as being an angry hot-head, but Clinton's points were absolutely valid.

        •  I don't think it is the campaign... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noop

          I haven't heard the Obama campaign smear Bill as a hot-head. In actuality, the record is fairly public on that account. The Clintons are well know for "reward your friends, punish your foes" behavior.

          Bills point are not quite valid:
          --You're assuming that the statement "Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that" is accurate. I'm not so sure.

          --The 1% argument includes Florida and Michigan. In Michigan, Hillary was the only major candidate on the ballot yet 40% voted "not Hillary", 4% voted Kucinich and 1% voted Dodd. So she beat "nobody" by 15 points - not a big accomplishment. In the pledged delegate count, it is 53%-47% Obama. My math tells me that's a 6% lead with over 80% of the delegates cast.

          --The media treatment argument is debatable at best. I'll give him that one. Getting caught in lies tends to get coverage.

          -- Bill had no problems with caucuses when he was winning them in 1992 and 1996.

          We've been living with a reality-impaired government for 7 years. I don't see the need to continue the course.

          STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA! STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

          by MT in Austin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  She should be (0+ / 0-)

      Not by a GOP challenger [I don't think there will be attempts to re-animate Rudy G. but you never know] but maybe a Dem will emerge in the interim.  Talk has been of BHusseinO not waiting his turn but HRC leapfrogged over Nita Lowey for the Senate seat in 2000.  Clearly, Lowey showed on tv recently that she doesn't have smooth skills to be in a position to unseat HRC but there might be others.

  •  Here's what I don't understand in the logic. (0+ / 0-)

    If it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win, why does Obama have to spend resources fighting her off?

    Obviously, what I'm saying is an oversimplification but it would good if someone actually spelled out the answer to this question.

  •  Never fear Clinton fans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geejay

    Mark Penn has hit upon a genius new fund raising idea....

    They (Monster Inc) are going to have a HUGE fund raiser / concert.  When people find out who is headlining the concert nothing, and I mean nothing, will be able to stop the stampede of contributions to the Clinton coffers.

    So, who is this secret headliner?  I'm not supposed to tell, but I can give you a hint!

  •  Can Someone Please Explain The Rules... (0+ / 0-)

    ... about how funds are earmarked for the Primary and the General?

    And, while your at it, what the rationale is behind such rules?

    The whole concept seems illogical - why is Hillary forced to put some of her financial resources in a GE "lockbox" (thanks, Al!) when she needs them for the Primary?

    •  Max donation (0+ / 0-)

      is $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general.

      So she has collected some GE money from people who have already maxed out their primary donations.

      To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito

      by discocarp on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because of the contribution limits (0+ / 0-)

      An individual is allowed to contribute $2300 for the primary campaign and $2300 for the general election.  All of Hillary's millionaire (or billionaire) friends have given $4600.  That means she has a lot of money she can't touch.

    •  Sweet! (0+ / 0-)

      A lockbox reference!

      "Strategery."

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

      by bobcatgrad on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Campaigns are limited to $2300 for the primary (0+ / 0-)

      ...and $2300 for the general in individual donations per person (since the mid-1970s, major party presidential candidates have all taken public money for the general instead of individual donations.)

      She has to separate the money because some people have given over $2,300 and the excess goes into a general campaign fund.

  •  It irritates the shit out of me (5+ / 0-)

    to think Obama's donations have to be squandered on prolonging HRC's vanity campaign.

    Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976

    by chicago minx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM PDT

    •  True, but I don't mind since I can SEE where my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dksbook, cybrestrike

      money is working all the time. Obama has ads all over the net, and when he was campaigning in my state, he had ads all over the TV and radio. I know he's managing what I give him correctly, so as long as I have some money to give, I will.

      We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

      by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My money, and probably yours too. (0+ / 0-)

      Doesn't Clinton think that Democrats' donations would be better spent fighting a Republican?

      "All it takes is one person to stand up and say 'f--k this.'"--Henry Rollins

      by ekthesy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama will be getting some serious cash (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, dksbook, The Nose, ezdidit, seabrook

      from me when the General comes around.

      Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

      by darthstar on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:01:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look on the bright side.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BDsTrinity

      Due to the length of the primary, many more people are getting to hear from Obama. This will increase the familiarity factor and, in many ways, give Obama a jump on McSame in the general election. He's out there working for every vote. McSame is talking to his base and his base alone.

      Assuming nobody does anything incredibly stupid, this may actually work out better in the long run.

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

      Hell, I'll be kicking in more cash once my stimulus check arrives. ;-)

      The funding issue really highlights how the campaigns are financed. Clinton has a ton of cash she can't use because she has fewer donors making maxed out contributions. Obama has about 2 million donors making smaller contributions but are still able to kick in a little more here and there.

      200 people making $25 contributions beats one person making $4600. Even better, that money can all be used in the primary and those 200 people can legally kick in even more if they want.

      It is Gulliver's Travels Financing (someone told me "Midget Wrestling Financing" was offensive). Come on all you Lilliputians, PULL!

      STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA! STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

      by MT in Austin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too. Her vanity will be her eventual (0+ / 0-)

      downfall.  Soon she will become a pariah in the Democratic party and have a hard time getting elected as dog catcher.

  •  Money isn't everything, though. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama did outspend Clinton in OH and she still walked away with the win.  Obama is outspending Clinton in PA, and PPP notwithstanding, I think she'll walk away with the win.

    The fact that she's not raising a lot and is in high debt puts her in an awful position during that post-primary lag time should she get the nomination.

    The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of clichés the first prize. Saul Bellow

    by AUBoy2007 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM PDT

    •  Obama cut her lead in Ohio (0+ / 0-)

      from double digits to single digits and he's doing the same thing in PA.  Actually, he may just win PA.  

      She's not raising a lot of money now because people realize that it is stupid to throw money down a rat hole or into a losing cause.

  •  I'll help pay her debt, if... (0+ / 0-)

    she drops out now.  

  •  Why isnt... (0+ / 0-)

    ..the media hammering her on this debt issue and the Obama campaign for that matter?

    Is this how she would run the country?  in to staggering debt?

    Obama-Warner csbinet - SECSTATE Holbrook, SECDEF Zinni, SECENERGY Gore, SECTREAS Yellen, SECLABOR Reich, USAG Feingold, EPA Kennedy, Jr.

    by alexm on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM PDT

    •  His campaign shouldn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Losty

      because it's unseemly. Let her campaign people keep bringing it up in the sense of "look, he has more money and we shouldn't lose only because we don't have enough money!" and the first part of that sentence will ring through more clearly, perhaps drowning out the rest.

  •  Question about the rules (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton has a lot of money that she cannot spend, because it came from donors who gave $4600: $2300 for the primary (the limit), $2300 for the general election.

    If (when) she quits, can she use the general election money to pay off her debts?  If not, what happens to the money?  Does she have to give it back?  Or can she give it to Obama's general election campaign?

  •  I'm running for president to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebbinflo, discocarp, cybrestrike

    pay off my student loans!

    Yoshimi '08

    Hillary Clinton: Running on Fumes!

    by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM PDT

  •  If she's just waiting for Obama to implode... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, Joe Beese

    which isn't going to happen, but...if that's her ace in the hole, then why doesn't she just suspend her campaign Romney-style?  Nothing she does or doesn't do out on the trail is going to have any effect on Obama.

    The fact that her numbers DECLINE once she begins campaigning in a state shows the futility (certainly in terms of negative financial ROI) of actively campaigning.  Her name recognition is good for 40% support off the top, and she ends up with +/- 10% of that once all is said and done

    So from her perspective, why not "suspend," wait for Obama to implode, and then pop up again? It certainly would be cheaper than staying in and waiting for the implosion.

    "All it takes is one person to stand up and say 'f--k this.'"--Henry Rollins

    by ekthesy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM PDT

    •  Because, in her heart of hearts she knows (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lysias, dksbook, Joe Beese

      that he won't simply implode, she's going to have to be there in his face day after day to force it. It's got to be extremely frustrating for her that he seems to have 9 lives in this thing.

      We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

      by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're being intellectually dishonest... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    23Progressive

    Except for Obama, no candidate in American history has raised more money or gotten more primary votes than Hillary. Most candidates have lots of debt in the primaries, including Kerry in 2004,  and the suggestion that she is staying the race as a fundraising ploy is absurd.  

    •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

      You should have stopped after your first sentence.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

      by bobcatgrad on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagreement isn't dishonesty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClaudeB

      Someone can have a differing opinion without having nefarious motives.

      I doubt she's staying in because of debt, though. I suspect they could pay off most debt by shutting down all campaign operations immediately. She's staying in because she wants to be President.

    •  I was on staff with Obama. I am a huge supporter (0+ / 0-)

      And I agree.  She can raise all the money in the world as a Senator from New York and a Clinton.  

      There is only one politician in the entire world that can beat her in 2012, considering the massive good-will she's engendered in the upstate. Mayor Bloomberg. And that would be difficult.

      I personally don't think her campaign is looking that far ahead.  Little busy, maybe.

    •  Then How's The Kerry Presidency Been? (0+ / 0-)

      You're being intellectually moronic if you think vote totals matter when compared to past elections.

      By your, um, "reasoning," John Edwards should be president, because he's probably gotten more primary votes than Woodrow Wilson.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point is that... (0+ / 0-)

        ...she has not had a problem raising money and most candidates in a close election spend cash as fast as they get it and are frequently in debt.

        As for your other point, in the modern democratic nomination system (post 1976) no other candidate, besides Obama, has gotten as much support --votes or money -- than Hillary.  I agree that its not apples to apples to compare total vote counts, but even if you look at just the early states that are always contested, Hillary has gotten much more support than previous candidates.

  •  First they ignore you... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, ezdidit, bennie, brein, Losty

    then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Obama needs to turn it around on them...he's so far avoided the ridicule part, but he really should start acting as the presumptive nominee and respond less to the Clinton team's antics.

    You can spin that a lot of ways (arrogant, condescending, etc.), but if you just move on and focus on the real issues:

    1.  Ending our troop involvement in Iraq
    1.  Repealing the disaster the GOP has wrought on our Country in the last 7 years
    1.  McCain as Bush's 3rd term...
    1.  etc.

    ...then Hillary becomes irrelevant and he gives her a face-saving out.  If she keeps this up, she's going to have more pie on her face and it will have to get uglier and uglier.  He should just behave as though he won, graciously, and ignore her attempts to grab attention - he has won this thing.

    The MSM is propaganda.

    by mmuskratt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

    •  He was ridiculed with the whole "just words" (0+ / 0-)

      thing, and again now with the Bowling. We've been in "fight" for over a month now. Can we just get to "win" already?

      We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

      by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get the whole bowling craze (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Muzikal203

        He was just having fun. Geeze. I would like to follow around everyone else to make sure that they know how to perform perfectly at everything. They are trying to make it a Kerry in the space outfit thing or something.

        Also, I'm currently watching Michelle Obama in Pittsburgh. She must have some fire in her belly today, more than usual.

        How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live. HD.Thoreau

        by ElizabethAM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't either, apparently Morning joe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ElizabethAM

          has been ragging on him about it all week. All it does is show that he's human.

          We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

          by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Morning 'Ho (0+ / 0-)

            People like Scarborough are always hopeful that they will be the genius that ignites the new "Dukakis tank moment." So that they can claim forever more that THEY were responsible for Obama being ridiculed and demeaned and driven from the race.  Somehow, I don't think the bowling moment is going to do it for Morning 'Ho.

            But I did love Obama's comment today. He said that when he's president, he'll tear out the White House bowling alley and put in a basketball court.

          •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

            somebody who's willing to put on the rented bowling shoes and use a lane ball and above all, not bowl too well, is OK in my book.

            I can see a lot of those blue-collar types seeing that and thinking he's not such a bad guy after all.

            Now, if he had shown up with the fancy shoes, and the fancy ball, and bowled like he'd been spending all his time practicing for the last month, that would have put people off, because he would have been showing them up.

            And NOBODY likes a show off.

        •  She does seem a little more fired up (0+ / 0-)

          usually she stands behind the podium, but she's walking around like Barack does at this one. . .

          We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

          by Muzikal203 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's the standard right-wing "effeminacy" smear (0+ / 0-)

          "Are you going to vote for a so-called man who can't even break 37 in 7 frames of bowling?"

          Meanwhile, I'm sure Grampy McGeezer would be bowling 250+ if he didn't have his arm fucked up while he was being a WAR HERO.

          Preventing Obama from securing 42.7% of the remaining delegates, and/or convincing Obama delegates to flip to Clinton, are both fantasies." - Chris Bowers

          by Joe Beese on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah and I challenge (0+ / 0-)

            Cindy McCain to campaign for her man like Michelle does for Barack because she obviously loves her country... if you haven't heard.

            Michelle v. Cindy. I got a billi0n-gazillion dollars on Michelle!

            How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live. HD.Thoreau

            by ElizabethAM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:39:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  4 exactly 4's for you. (0+ / 0-)

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

      by ezdidit on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:29:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's to NY Senatorial Primaries (7+ / 0-)

    One to replace Schumer in 2010 and a second to replace Clinton in 2012.

    A blue state deserves better than Chuck "Mukasey" Schumer and Hillary "Murdoch" Clinton.

  •  Is it not possible, that (0+ / 0-)

    Even though he all but secured the Republican nomination by mid-February, Mr. McCain has so far managed to enlist only a fraction of the heavyweight bundlers of campaign contributions

    Republicans know that NOW is not necessarily the time when McCain needs to be spending money, since Obama and Clinton are still (supposedly) duking it out.

    Maybe they're holding on to their money until McCain really NEEDS it.  After all, they can't LEGALLY give money endlessly.

    Of course, Occam's Razor would simply state the obvious, "McCain isn't gettin' any money 'cause nobody really likes him."

    And generally, I like to follow Occam's Razor, but I thought I would raise the possibility....

    HOPE: It's the new black.

    by Samwoman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:41 PM PDT

    •  Earlier money is better for the candidate, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nose

      and they know that. They might be lacking a sense of urgency about it, but if they really liked the guy, they would have given.

    •  It's not that they don't like him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samwoman

      it's that they don't TRUST him (that whole 'maverick' schtick, remember?), and they don't think they can control him.

      They KNEW they could control Bush, and besides, there was a Repub Congress that would be his lapdog.

      They know that even if they manage to get McCain into the WH, they're not going to control Congress, and likely will have even MORE Dems, and more Dems with spines, to deal with.

      They're not going to have the toadies in the Justice Dept either, or in EPA, or any other part of govt.

      So why throw good money away?

  •  superdelegate with a blog (0+ / 0-)
  •  OH SNAP! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Nose, smeesq, 23Progressive, Julia C

    Obama speaking today:

    "There’s been some talk about Rocky Balboa over the last couple days. And you know we all love Rocky," Obama told the labor leaders.

    "But we got to remember Rocky was a movie," Obama continued. "And so is the idea that someone can fight for working people and at the same time, embrace the broken system Washington, where corporate lobbyists use their clout to shape laws to their liking."

    Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

    by Dreggas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM PDT

    •  And Rocky lost (0+ / 0-)

      People forget this.

      Preventing Obama from securing 42.7% of the remaining delegates, and/or convincing Obama delegates to flip to Clinton, are both fantasies." - Chris Bowers

      by Joe Beese on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Rocky (0+ / 0-)

        is a 20+ yr old movie, and didn't show Philly in the best of lights.

        I do like watching the original though. I know that part of town, we used to live around there. I used to know guys just like that.

        Part of the reason I left.

        •  I didn't see the Philly angle (0+ / 0-)

          Sheesh. Pander much?

          I only hope her control-top pantyhose is getting uncomfortably tight from all the cheesesteak sandwiches she must have herself photographed eating.

          Preventing Obama from securing 42.7% of the remaining delegates, and/or convincing Obama delegates to flip to Clinton, are both fantasies." - Chris Bowers

          by Joe Beese on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Money might wake her up to the fact she lost n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Why would Obama's people say 30-40 mil... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and then backtrack?

    Something weird's going on.

  •  Query: How many of us would stop donating (0+ / 0-)

    to Obama as soon as Sen Clinton dropped out?

    •  I wouldn't stop. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dksbook

      I want to beat the Repugs much more than I want to beat Clinton.

      McBush: "War is swell!"

      by Dragon5616 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not me (0+ / 0-)

      I have pledged Obama $50 a month until the election.  That's the max I can afford.  I expect there are many more like me.  Obama is collecting 70% of his money from small donors like me (under $100).  The beauty of it is that we can keep it up month after month and thereby giving him a steady stream of money for the entire campaign.

      BTW, anyone notice that McCain has stopped squawking about Obama "going back on his agreement to have public financing" (even though Obama never agreed to any such thing)?  Could it have something to do with the fact that McCain is supposed to be receiving public financing right now and he has spent more than the allowable limit.  Or how about because he has not only overspent, he used his public financing credit as collateral on a loan to his campaign.  This is being ignored in the press, but I think it is an important story.

  •  I am STILL predicitng Obama at $65 million (0+ / 0-)

    Everybody says I'm crazy, but that's the low end of what I think he raised in March.

    It could exceed $100 million if he maintained the February avereage donation size.

    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:49 PM PDT

  •  Consider Her Management (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dksbook, magatte

    Of the campaign vs. Barack's: inept strategy, ham-fisted tactics, and now "fiscal irresponsibility."  Doesn't this say volumes about her ability as a potential President?  That phone may ring at 3 AM, but she'll be out getting ready for her paper route to cover Chinese debt.

  •  Of course she's staying in the race. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trinite

    Obama is outspending her 3:1 in PA and he has a huge cash advantage, but she will stay in right through Denver.  She has plenty of money.  All this "does she have to quit?" talk only increases donations to her campaign, because it sounds the alarm bell among donors.

  •  When Clinton does finally drop out, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dragon5616

    that's going to free up more potential contributors for Obama. I think part of the reason that both Hillary and Barack had such huge numbers for Feb was that Edwards had dropped out and his contributors moved to one or the other.

    Anyway it will be interesting to watch what happens to Obama's fundraising when she does concede. If the numbers jump way up, that would seem to be an indication that the party is, indeed, coming together behind him.

    •  There were a lot of primaries (0+ / 0-)

      in Feb. and early March.  Obama did not push for money in March like he did in Feb. After March 4, Obama had easy wins in MS and WY. PA was not until April 22.  He's coasting right now. Coasting at $1 million per day.

      The money doesn't lie. Clinton is beaten.

      McBush: "War is swell!"

      by Dragon5616 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Paying off debts is an easy explanation... (0+ / 0-)

    The harder one goes to Bill and how he undid her when "the fun started."

    He may try to loan the campaign some more money, maybe his future reputation as well, all for cheap slurry politics, too.  I am convinced that he is the major reason she hasn't resigned as yet.  The inevitable...loser.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM PDT

  •  It would be nice if (0+ / 0-)

    all that fund-raising effort was going towards the Democratic nominee rather than a lost cause.

  •  Debt doesn't push these folks out (0+ / 0-)

    Out here in Oregon, when Kevin Mannix (R) ran for governor in 2002, he built up a few million in debt.  He ended out basically getting the party (which had little $ then and even less now) to bail him out just before he ran for Congress this year.  

    The only way debt pushes HRC out is if TV stations or other vendors start refusing service on fears of nonpayment but I don't think that'll happen.

    "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unkown

    by skywaker9 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM PDT

  •  Debt is not what's keeping HRC in the race. (0+ / 0-)

    Nor is the hope that Obama will somehow implode.  Not that she'd mind such a gift being handed her, but she has little expectation.
    She's staying in the race because the nomination, and then the office, is hers, damnit.  She deserves it.  And she and her husband intend to call in every favor, every chit that is out there.  And then they'll twist arms.  And then they'll threaten and extort.  And maybe she'll cry a few more times.
    The only debt that's keeping her in the race is a deficit of ideals.

    It's my party and I'll destroy it if I want to-HRC

    by jazzmaniac on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

  •  If she drops out of the race now (0+ / 0-)

    (not that she has any obligation to drop out now, but just saying "if" she would), I will pledge to donate what I can to retire her debt so she can worry about her next senate race, or the governor's race, or whatever she wants to.  But she has to promise to support the nominee whole-heartedly and stop her pol-affair with John McSame.

    Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:38 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site