March $: Obama raised more than $30mil, Clinton "close to" $20mil

According to Time, both Democratic candidates for president had lighter fundraising totals in March than in February, with Obama continuing to outraise Clinton.

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."

Clinton's fundraising also slowed down.

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.

If both campaigns' totals reflect funds raised for the primaries only, it appears Obama will have raised at least $10 million more than Clinton in March.  Add that to his existing cash-on-hand advantage, the Obama campaign ended March in a stronger position re: delegates and funding than he had at the beginning of the month.

(This assumes that both campaigns' numbers reflect only money eligible for the primaries.)

•  tips

  A short diary, but to the point.  The linked article goes on to focus on Clinton's campaign debts, indicating her finances are now part of the media narrative.  I don't think her campaign is pleased with what Time is reporting.

  by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:37:25 AM PDT

  •  If it was good news they

    wouldn't keep it secret.

    They must have a little cash since they are apparently buying a little media and making payroll. The calculation that keeping it secret after all the publicity regarding her unpaid bills dating back to Iowa is telling.  

    by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:53:21 AM PDT

    •  and that publicity continues

      I only quoted the paragraphs that focus on March fundraising estimates, but the article covers her perceived financial problems.  Further down:

      Word of Obama's latest financial benchmark comes amid continued reports that the Clinton campaign is struggling with a persistent debt that at times has reached nearly $9 million, according to published reports and Democratic party officials. The size of Clinton's debt, in turn, has given rise to questions about whether she will have the cash to compete head to head with Obama in various primaries in the final eight weeks of the nomination campaign.

      Sen. Clinton loaned herself $5 million earlier this year when her campaign stumbled, fundraising slowed and her cash on hand dwindled. There have been scattered reports in recent weeks that various campaign vendors have not been paid for work or services that have already been rendered, with some taking to the airwaves to complain.

      Debt is not uncommon in presidential campaigns, and often is carried quietly on a campaign treasurer's books for a few weeks. Creditors go unpaid, staffers can work for free; small costs can even be borne on personal credit cards for a brief period of time. These and other tactics are almost always employed at one time or another by most presidential operations to get through tight spots. But the debts tend to be short-lived and modest, rarely exceeding a few million dollars. While the exact size of Clinton's debt has fluctuated, Democratic party officials say, hers' remains above the norm in size for a campaign at this stage of a race.

      by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:00:07 AM PDT

  •  Only about Obama would they say that

    30-some million in one month is a 'light' month.  IIRC, will that number combined with Jan & Feb make it a $100 mil first quarter for Obama ?

    Also - another question will be how much of Clinton's intake is for the general election vs the primary.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:17:25 AM PDT

    •  2008

      January was what, $36 million?  February was $55 million, and March over $30 million.

      That's a minimum of $121 million for Q1.

      by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:32:38 AM PDT

      •  Holy shit, go Obama!

        by LoLoLaLa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM PDT

•  I read

  Yesterday that someone close to the Obama campaign said his number was probably close to $40 million.  I can't remember where though.  Anyway $30-40 Million is really good in the face of Rev. Wright.

  by Snickers77 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:38:53 AM PDT

  •  could well be

    The quote here could certainly mean $39 million.

    I suspect the week of the Philadelphia speech led to a lot of donations.  Even though the widget on his fundraising page turned out to be a glich, it was growing so quickly that week that I imagine it reflected some sort of surge in donations.

    by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:43:32 AM PDT

  •  perhaps The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder?

    by PhillyGal on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:51:57 AM PDT

•  With the Wright issue dominating for close to 2

  WEEKS, I am happy he got more than a million a day(They are still counting it and it is more than 30 mil easily).

  by soms on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:39:11 AM PDT

•  Hmmph. What % of hers is for the primary?

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:39:12 AM PDT

  •  I wondered the same thing

    The article makes it appear Obama will have at least a $10 million advantage for the month.  It may be a lot larger than that when the FEC reports come in (both because his number could be in the high 30s and because her number could be padded by general election money).

    The massive small donor base continues to be productive.  

    by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:41:43 AM PDT

    •  that would be us! So pat on the back all!

      by karanja on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:45:56 AM PDT

  •  That's what I'm wondering too.

    I'm hoping it'll be another instance of mostly funds that have to be earmarked for the GE because of donor limits.

    Money she can't use right now is worth as much as money she didn't raise.

    by MingPicket on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:41:58 AM PDT

  •  Very important question

    And did she loan herself anymore money?  We should take these rough figures with a grain of salt until we get more details.  

    by davidkc on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:56:29 AM PDT

    •  I doubt it.

      She strikes me as someone who protects her own.

      It will be interesting to find out.

      by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:58:56 AM PDT

      •  The Mittster self-funded in a big way, but

        Team Clinton won't, even though their pockets are probably as deep as Mitt's are.  Team Clinton is stiffing universities and other non-profits left and right while they're sitting on an eight figure nest egg.

        by RFK Lives on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:15:27 AM PDT

  •  That's the $64,000 question...

    But my guess would be half of it at the most.

    by ahania on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:59:20 AM PDT

•  We can be assured of one thing...

  Clinton's figures are fudged.

  by David Kroning on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:40:35 AM PDT

  •  She likes fuzzy math. nt

    by MingPicket on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:42:40 AM PDT

•  Probably UNDER 20mil

  Notice they said "close to"

  by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:42:03 AM PDT

  •  yep

    I was being conservative with the article's phrasing, but I have to conclude that Obama's take for the month over Clinton well exceeds $10 million.  

    by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:44:52 AM PDT

    •  Obama could even have doubled Clinton

      Imagine if "30 and still counting" means 34, and "close to 20" means 17...

      Not to get one's expectations up, but that'd be a nice story.

      by djs on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:14:21 AM PDT

•  I give $100 a month to Obama; it's the least I

  can do!

  by brettjay on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:43:51 AM PDT

  •  me too

    by snowshoeblue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:48:09 AM PDT

•  So are we all tapped out for the GE?

  Obama being forced to fight Clinton tooth and nail all the way to the convention has pretty much drained many peoples coffers.  Many Obama supporters who donated a couple hundred bucks to defeat Clinton, might not be able to sustain that kind of support in the GE with the  economy in the tank.  We've already spent $300 million figuring out who's going to be the fucking nominee??  And Clinton has 0 chance of winning..  This is outrageous..  

  Fucking McBitch has no bread and we're wasting ours..  I'm really sick of these squabbling Clinton supporters hollering for more states to be added to the union so she can beat this upstart...  Dood.. I'm pissed!

  by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:47:12 AM PDT

  •  NO.

    Remember, 2300 for the primary and 2300 for the general.

    by icebergslim on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

    •  Not my point tho, bro..

      I'm saying I can't keep giving loot to Obama as much as I'd like to..  I know he needs all the cheese he can get but this primary battle is fucking us up..  We need to consolidate, yo..  Get ourselves together.  Stop dicking around arguing over personal issues between candidates -- they don't even talk about issues anymore..  Obama won dude, on the merits -- its over.  All this hyperbole over discounting the remainder of states (NC, OR, SD are battlegrounds now, yo? c'mon) is just dragging this out forcing Obama to spend all his loot.  

      Clinton needs to bounce.  flat out.

      by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:50:59 AM PDT

      •  Word.

        by Nonie3234 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:20 AM PDT

        •  You feel me?!?

          by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:06:39 AM PDT

          •  Heh...yeah, son...

            Too many people drinking the Haterade round here.
            [shrug]

            Whatever. Just dust your shoulder off and move on.
            Peace.

            by Nonie3234 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:30:21 AM PDT

      •  I agree.

        She does need to leave and I believe the pressure is on her to do so.  She can't match the math or the money, she need to leave or she will be blamed for fucking this up and no 2012 FOR HER.

        by icebergslim on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:59:28 AM PDT

        •  Flat out.. I'd be happy to STFU if she dips

          out gracefully.. But now its obvious she's trying to set herself up for 2012, and I guarantee if she screws Obama her chances for 2012 with the AA community are exactly 0%.  That goes for the primaries as well as the General Election..  Let's see her win with those kinds of numbers...

          by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:08:10 AM PDT

  •  you may be pissed but chill on the names

    it doesn't help anything.

    We will be fine for the general - al the big doners who gave to clinton will come his way and remember much of the money is being spent organizing and registering/identifying voters which will carry over.

    by ETinKC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:50:00 AM PDT

    •  What I can't call McSame McBitch?

      Why? He's the Pope now or something?  gimmie a break...    name calling should be the least of our concerns.

      btw..
      wtf.. Everyone on dKos calls McCain, McSame or McBush..  So now, McBitch is somehow worse?

      by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

      •  That was not a name pointed at McCain

        That was a direct attack on Hillary...she has no money and is wasting ours.

        Disclaimer:  I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter, just waiting for the Primaries to be over so I can vote for the winner.

        by Sychotic1 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:57:15 AM PDT

        •  WHat?????

          I didn't call Clinton a Bitch, nor would I even tho I think the name fits..  I clearly used the term McBitch referring to McCain..  EVERY DAY I see name calling on dKos about Republicans, and when I do it I get censured?  

          And yeah, I think Clinton is rubbish, yo.  Anyone who race baits in my opinion is human trash, and that goes for Clinton.

          by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:05:11 AM PDT

      •  I read it as a name for Hillary - but I can

        see how it could be the other way - I apologize

        by ETinKC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:05:23 AM PDT

    •  ....and Ice is a Lady....a Little Respect, Ese...

      by serrano on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:03 AM PDT

    •  also remember

      ....many in the donor base (remember, there are well more than a million of us now) now have not been as fanatical as the more vocal of us and may not yet be close to being tapped out.

      The money spent now has application to the general.  The voter registration drives from state to state are putting many more Democrats on the voter rolls, Democrats who may help beyond the top of the ticket to swing downballot races.  We may look back at this extended primary season as a blessing when all the votes are counted in November.

      (Also, we may not.  But there are potential advantages to the present state of the race.)

      by Nuisance Industry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:56:54 AM PDT

    •  McMonster fits better perfectly. nt

      by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:57:35 AM PDT

  •  Unacceptable language

    I don't know where everyone gets the idea that it is appropriate to call a Dem candidate "Fucking McBitch".

    ...and who uprated this comment?

    by Sychotic1 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:50 AM PDT

    •  I didn't uprate but she and Bill

      starved hundreds of thousands in Iraq in the 1990's and allowed the IMF to rape East Asia, so a lot of people on the Left really, really do not like them.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:59:36 AM PDT

      •  I don't care if you like them or not

        but this is a place for discussion, not mud slinging.  If you want to diary what they did, back it up with links etc.

        Throwing out accusations and running is not acceptable.  I am getting sick and tired of people thinking this is freaking RedState or Mydd

        by Sychotic1 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:02:38 AM PDT

        •  And I'm sick and tired of people

          defending Democrats who starve people and invade countries that didn't attack us.  

          Do you deny that the Clintons starved people in Iraq and that they allowed the IMF, a US dominated institution, to sack East Asia, taking away several generations of social gains?  That she voted to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us?  That she voted to allow cluster bombs in civilian areas?  That Team Clinton has deployed a pretty vicious dog whistling campaign?

          Those are all reasonable points of discussion.  

          Hillary and Bill Clinton are truly, truly awful, and they deserve all the scorn they get.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:41 AM PDT

    •  Reading it again I take him at his word that he

      was refering to McCain - while not the most original name, I have uprated him elsewhere to make up for any HR he has gotten

      by ETinKC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:07:09 AM PDT

    •  Dude.. I'm not talking about Clinton!!

      After reading some of these comments, I don't understand why everyone thinks I'm calling Clinton a Bitch??  I'm talking about McCain!

      Damn...

      by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:10:09 AM PDT

      •  A Bitch Is A FEMALE Dog...

        that's why we misinterpreted...

        by Hear Our Voices on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:19:09 AM PDT

        •  I'm sure you're familiar with the

          vernacular slang of calling a man a bitch.  Meaning that he's basically sold his manhood out because it was easier than standing up for himself..  Bitch==punk.  

          I think that fits with McCain rather nicely...

          by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

          •  I Wasn't Disagreeing With You...

            I was just trying to explain where the thought you were talking about Hillary came from.

            Reading your posts made me smile because you write like my kids talk.  I looked at your handle to see if it might be one of them, but it doesn't look like it!

            by Hear Our Voices on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:41 AM PDT

      •  Either

        many here must feel that the term fits Clinton, or they only see it as a bad name for a woman...but for years I have heard "Bitch" as in Bush's bitch, as in dog that follows him around.  This primary has made us become very reactionary and very sensitive to certain trigger words forgetting they have different meanings.  

        I do not think anyone would have misread if they remembered there is another one we are fighting against, and I don't think many would care if you called McCain Bush's Dog

        by housesella on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:22:42 AM PDT

  •  Yo.. McBitch is not Clinton! It's McCain!

    I'm not talking about Clinton, I'm saying McCain has no ends, so Obama should roll over him.. But we can't because we're spending all our bread fighting amongst ourselves..  

    Wasn't calling Clinton a bitch, I'm calling McCain a bitch-- Bushes bitch.

    by RyuX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:12:06 AM PDT

    •  OK, being that BITCH seems a bit sexist

      Let's just call John Sidney McCain by his actual role then, which is Bush's Enabling WHORE.

      by OneCharmingBastard on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

    •  I still like John "W" McSame better.

      by PittsburghPete on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:29 AM PDT

  •  Not with 2 million individual donors. NT

    by marvyt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:45:49 AM PDT

•  As Kos said yesterday...

  If Clinton's numbers were great - she would be bragging about them already.  However, I am taking nothing for granted.

  by RichM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:48:14 AM PDT

  •  She always has an angle

    so it could be this will be manipulated as a plea for more money.

    What was her debt going into the month?

    by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:56:39 AM PDT

•  I won't beleive it until I see it on

  barackobama.com! I thought he raised way more than that.

  by Highwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:53:59 AM PDT

•  Hillary is clearly the underdog

  in this fight whereas O'Bama has become the rich guy. This is not necessarily bad for Hillary because her core constituency, the Democratic party base, can relate to being less well off than the fat cats in Washington and Wall Street. Ordinary people actually like this and always support the candidate who has to make it from the bottom up and succeeds despite ALL ODDS.

  by Ritter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:02:51 AM PDT

  •  If only

    she had made it from the bottom up instead of blowing a titanic war chest before Super Tuesday with a burn rate that would have raised eyebrows in the dot com era. She's at the bottom now because she's spent over $200M on cynical, warring consultants; bad strategy; unexceptional ads; unnecessary luxuries, and; donuts.

    I don't know how many members of the Democratic party base can sympathize with spending half a million dollars for parking in Washington DC while Obama stays in Motel 6s (at least, he did in Iowa).

    Face it: Obama's the guy who worked his way up from nothing. He's got lots of money because he's a great candidate who's run a great campaign.

    by oldjohnbrown on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

  •  tell me you're joking. Obama has raised from

    more small donors than Hillary has. I'm sick of this BS "oh, all Hillary supporters work 6 or 7 jobs and can't caucus or donate" simpering that ignores the reality of Obama's fundraising base.

    by terra on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

    •  Obama is from an aristocratic family

      of corrupt African diplomats who don't give a damn about their people. He was born into a rich family. Hillary Clinton otoh is upper middle class who married into a disfunctional lower class family. She knows what it means to live on the edge. Obama does not. He was born with a silver spoon.

      Big difference.

      by Ritter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM PDT

      •  Hillary actually married downwards,

        which is very rare for a woman to do.

        by Ritter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:15 PM PDT

•  Where are HRC's tax returns??????????

  Those would be highly relevant here--where did her campaign loan come from?  

  by jenesq on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:16:59 AM PDT

  •  Only agreed to release this year's returns

    Hillary has only committed to release her 2007 tax return - "sometime around April 15th."  2007 probably shows much less income than previous years, because Bill spent more of his time campaigning in 2007 vs. making tens of millions from overseas interests. They are waiting for their W-2s to come in from Kahkistan.

    by JPZenger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:38:43 AM PDT

    •  Are you sure? That's all she promised?

      Wow.  People should not let that go.

      by jenesq on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:13:21 AM PDT

•  Accounting: the Math that Ends HRC '08. nt.

  by SteamPunkX on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:38:33 AM PDT

•  please let's wait and see

  this is based on speculation and campaigns like to set expectations through the press and we are playing into that.

  by MMW on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:42:10 AM PDT

•  Okay, so I guess I was overly paranoid

  When I thought Clinton would outraise Obama. But fundraising was down for both, and the gap did narrow, so I wasn't entirely wrong!

  by democrattotheend on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM PDT

  •  No, you did good!

    Anyone who hadn't donated for March probably was inspired to do so because of your post -- well done.  A few more days and I can make my April donation!

    by PittsburghPete on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:11:31 AM PDT