What does it say if Hillary can't out-raise Obama even in a month where she "won big" on mini-Tuesda

[jenmito]

(OH, TX (even though OBAMA won the state in delegates) and RI) while Obama had non-stop coverage of "pastor-gate"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. It means her campaign is just the second greatest in fund raising in history

with Obama being the greatest. This is a classic case where you should celebrate your own candidate's remarkable achievement without trying to belittle his opponent. Both campaigns are smashing every single fund raising record in the book.

[jenmito]

3. It also means that she can't do as well as someone who had his worth month news-wise and she

supposedly had her best. Sorry, but the point of this thread is not to celebrate Obama's remarkable achievement only but to wonder "out loud" why Hillary couldn't beat him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Because her fund raising is at a record breaking rate for any other year

This has nothing to do with Clinton having trouble raising money. It has everything to do with Obama's truly amazing ability to raise money.

Several years back (in the midst of the steroid era) Mark McGuire set a new record for home runs in a season and Sammy Sosa finished a few back of McGuire. The big story wasn't about Sosa's disappointing tally.

[jenmito]

17. "For any other year" doesn't count. She has just as much access to the internet and donors as Obama

does. Where's her overwhelming support? Why did she not pay all her bills?

[democrattotheend]

8. Fair point

And I still think her number might be more impressive than we expect. But you have to admit, Obama's grassroots fundraising is impressive.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I absolutely admit that :) n/t

[totodeinhere]

21. But you didn't answer the question.

If she is so good, what can't she raise more money than Obama does?

[jenmito]

22. Thank you.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

2. We are electing delegates

They said that themselves back in January, heading into Super Tuesday. They were terrified people would count states instead of delegates. We are electing delegates. Obama won Texas. It is critical that we stop letting her manipulate reality and the rules.

[jenmito]

4. I know. And I've emailed CNN and MSNBC asking why they're not covering this story-that OBAMA won TX

since it IS a delegate race.

[Cha]

7. We know why the m$$$m is not covering it..but

thanks for emailing them and letting them know that you know and they should be doing their job instead of covering up for clinton.

[jenmito]

11. Yeah...

I saw Scarborough crowing about Hillary winning OH and TX at which point Rachel Maddow said, "But she didn't win TX. The delegate count shows OBAMA won TX," to which Scarborough replied, dismissing it with, (paraphrased), "Well she won the popular vote" and Maddow responded AGAIN but the segment ended. :shrug: I'm going to write again right now to David Gregory's new show at [e-mail] (in case you wanna do the same). :hi:

[Cha]

19. Thanks..could scarbourgh be anymore of

a pandering asshole? Next time Rachel should ask him what exactly counts in Texas? Do the most delegates for Obama help Obama or hilary as in whose column Texas will be in?

[jenmito]

23. Nope...

and Gregory cut off the conversation. :eyes:

[goclark]

24. Rachel is one classy lady and she should

have her own show on MSM.

[Cha]

5. It's says people are wising up to little hilary,

the m$$$$m and their sleazy attacks ..and they are ready for some major change.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/bills-tirade-in-private-_n_94605.html

[jenmito]

6. I agree. I just don't understand why she's still competitive in the national polls.

:shrug:

[Cha]

9. Who knows..polls screwered? polls

haven't caught up to her latest lies? Looks like Obama is catching up in PA, though!

[jenmito]

15. True...

I'd rather he be rising in PA than nationally.

[Zachstar]

10. I tend to try not to think about the obvious answers.

Let us just say that Obama does have an uphill climb. Yet that is what he does best.

[jenmito]

12. How does OBAMA have an uphill climb?

[Zachstar]

29. Lets see. Let me pick a nice one.

People who thought Clinton was entitled to the presidency and will be mad that she is not.

[jenmito]

30. So how does that mean he has an uphill climb? He's leading in every way!

[Cha]

31. Those people can go suck on lemons to

enhance their sour grapes.

[OzarkDem]

14. Obama is getting big corporate and Wall Street backing

that's what it says.

My guess is Obama has sold out on some key issues like health care reform and real banking regulation, so the money and the media favoritism has switched to him. Corporate America has decided they want to wrap up the Dem primary and Obama has offered them deals they can't refuse.

Myself, I like Democracy, health care reform and a strong economy. I'd much rather pick the candidate who the corporations DON'T prefer.

The race is now a battle for the Democratic Party Leadership's conscience. Support the candidate the corporations have chosen for you or back the one who will support the Democratic Party.

[jenmito]

18. You MUST be kidding!

If ANYONE sold out in return of big donations, it's the Clintons. Why haven't they disclosed their past tax returns yet?

[Cha]

20. Ignored is not "kidding" ..

they're being willfully ignorant because hilary's behind does not compute.

[jenmito]

25. I think you're right...

S/he said OBAMA'S money comes from special interests that he'll have to do favors for. :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

27. Link

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

more

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

The above are incomplete, however. I noticed on Obama's last FEC filing that there were an astonishingly large number of contributions for which he hadn't yet provided any donor employer details.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html

[VolcanoJen]

32. Oh, that's funny, your selective Open Secrets search

I'm sure you already realize that when you plug in Clinton's name, you come up with almost the exact same list of donors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

And Obama has a whopping $250.00 of PAC contributions compared to Clinton's 1.2 million, and her $5 million in self-financing (we still don't know where that actually came from).

Gallant effort at deception, though!

[OzarkDem]

26. That explains Obama's corporate donations?

You know, the "bundled" money?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

[jonestonesusa]

33. Obama is also leading among small donors.

He has gained over a million small donors and counting - the core of his support has been from small donors. Also, while HRC is no stranger to the corporate interests herself, all national politicians need to be watched by the people so that the interests of the people prevail.

[DevonRex]

28. It says March doesn't count. Only 11 months now. Oh wait...

maybe it's 10 months. Or I guess she might be down to 6 or so now.

[jenmito]

34. kick-Obama raised over $40 milliion!! During his most difficult time YET!

Woo Hoo!!!

[snooper2]

35. Simple...

Her Coporate donors are maxed out at $2300 each

[jenmito]

36. Yup. I also wonder if the numbers she releases from March will include the debt she owes!

Too bad she had no "plan B" to continue after Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th).