Clinton's Pennsylvania victory comes with cash prize

[BeatleBoot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_el_pr/money_matters;_ylt=AqX5p073HbOlk7e0V1jJuPgDW7oF

Clinton's Pennsylvania victory comes with cash prize

WASHINGTON - Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton's victory Tuesday came with a cash prize.

In the hours after winning Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary, Clinton's campaign said she raised $3.5 million.

By midday Wednesday, the campaign estimated the total haul at $10 million raised online in the 24 hours since Pennsylvania's polls closed, and claimed it was her best fundraising day ever.

<more>

[scheming daemons]

1. $10 million will last her a week... if she's lucky.... then what?

[MADem]

6. Well, Obama spends three bucks for every one she spends...so he'll need to

ask his supporters to send their Gametap subscription money and their iPod download cash.

[LakeSamish706]

11. Thats Bullshit... You better take a look at what he has earned and burnt vs your candidate... n/t

[MADem]

13. Ah, more testiness and anger! Fascinating! nt

[Political Heretic]

18. You provoke someone, then point out their testiness? Fascinating.

[MADem]

25. Provoke? I talk about spending, and that's PROVOKING to you?

What, anything other than "Obama is my shepherd, I shall not want" is PROVOCATIVE?

PLEASE.

You need to read post 22 downthread. You also might buy--and USE--an unabridged dictionary.

And cheer up. Your candidate is the frontrunner, yet all you can do is be angry.

That's a curious dynamic, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

[johnnydrama]

30. yes, but

Hillary gives 50 cents of each one of those dollars to Mark Penn.

[DJ13]

2. She was $15 million in debt, so add $10 million and.........

.......she's still in debt.

[ossman]

3. prove it. I dont trust McCauliff the used car sales puke.

[Barack_America]

4. I can't wait to find out how much of that $10 million was another self-loan...

If it exists at all.

[LakeSamish706]

5. I would like to see proof that she raised 10 million in one night... Sorry, not buying it. n/t

[MADem]

8. Then don't. And don't be "sorry." No one really cares if you "buy it" or not. Except maybe you.

:rofl:

The candidates put out monthly spending reports. The April figures will be filed around 20 May.

Keep your hyper-eye peeled now!

[LakeSamish706]

10. And no one really gives a shit about your loser candidate either... So there.. n/t

[MADem]

12. Ewww, a bit "testy" for a supporter of the frontrunner, I see. Perpetual anger! NT

[Political Heretic]

20. Hey look, provoking someone again with personal attacks no less, then commenting on their testiness.

Do you have but one play in your playbook?

[MADem]

22. I directed no offensive comments at the poster. I commented on the quality of some financial

contributors to your favored candidate, but that wasn't personal. And if you don't "get that," you need a new dictionary.

And I didn't even note the testiness until it was plainly apparent. See, posts that start with "that's bullshit" are generally perceived as testy.

You apparently do not understand quite what a "personal ATTACK" is. Nor do most of your companions. The definition is in the DU rules. You might read them.

A personal attack is directed AT the poster. Directly. See, that's why it's called a "personal" attack. If I call you a fucking nitwit, that's a personal attack, and prohibited. But see, I don't do anything like that. I have actually read and understand those DU rules.

I find this testiness, that you think I shouldn't mention, quite interesting, because you'd think that the frontrunners would be "happy" warriors, instead of miserable, complaining, angry scolds.

It's pretty doggone obvious that Obama fans aren't very happy--at least not here at DU-- and it is a dynamic worth discussing, if you were to be honest. The tactic used by these unhappy supporters, which they pull out anytime they are challenged in any fashion, I've noticed, goes something like this:

--Denigrate Clinton with vitriolic language or snarky comments. Use vaguely sexist insults if needs must. The "Me Too" chorus joins in with infantile and unclever affirmations.

--Get angry and aggrieved when anyone mentions that such commentary is not productive, or if they get back from a Clinton supporter the very same level of snark that they dished out. This is often accompanied by virtual pouting and whining.

--When challenged further about their behavior and attitude, PM a group of acolytes to do a "pile on" and if that doesn't "do the trick," follow up with the standard "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEEAR YOU!" routine, with a dramatic "That's IT--you're on IGNORE!!"


....Like that's a fucking punishment, or something. :rofl:



--Occasionally, make 'Junior High School quality' smartass remarks about the IGNORED posts that they are unable to see, in an effort to get other posters to clue them in on what's going on. Use the PM feature to a fellow member of the Lord of the Flies club if the curiosity gets insatiable.

-- Lather, rinse, repeat.

The quality of discourse here borders on infantile. And that's the dynamic, over and over again. It's rather unfortunate. On the bright side, one gets more done, since the forum is not as much of an amusing time waster as it used to be!

[Political Heretic]

26. "No one really cares....except maybe you"

That's called provoking a terse response.

PS - I'm extremely happy. :D

[MADem]

28. That's not a personal attack, and it is a statement of opinion.

There's nothing in the DU rules that requires verbosity in responses, you know. Succinctness IS permissable--really. Especially when utter ignorance of the monthly campaign finance reporting process was the central feature of the post I was replying to--demanding proof of something that won't be revealed for another month, because that's the reporting date for dissemination of the April information.

"I'm not buying it" is a provocation, too, if you want to get whiney about it. It it suggestive of deliberate deceit and prevarication, without ANY evidence in support of those inferences whatsoever. I actually provided substantive information in my post, to include the approximate date of the next financial release, which is a bit more useful than "Waaah, give me PROOF!"

Now, if you don't like my opinions, or don't want to hear any opinions but your own, you perhaps should set up two email accounts and have a conversation with yourself. But this IS a "discussion" forum, where people do engage in something called "discussion."

I'm glad you are happy. Life is much too short to be crabby.

[Political Heretic]

29. Okay well, I stand corrected then. I don't want to quibble about it.

[NewHampshireDem]

14. Well, another one bites the dust.

[MADem]

27. Ah, there's my thesis, proven in a heartbeat!

Faster than the speed of light!

[NewHampshireDem]

7. A few observations

1. $10 million divided by 100,000 donors means $100 per donor average. I doubt all three figures.

2. She was asking for $5 donations, so if she did in fact raise $10 million, my guess is that there are going to be a lot of big money donors on that list ... so much for 'grassroots' support.

3. After losing in PA, Obama likely hauled in about $5 million in the same amount of time with about 2/3 the same number of new donors HRC is claiming.

4. HRC is *still* broke. Obama is still flush.

Details can be found here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/221632/852/236/502180

and here

http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24493/the_clinton_obama_money_chase_continues

Frankly, I'd rather raise

[mamalone]

9. Actually...

I think McCauliff said that they "were on track" to raise $10 million.. which is glaringly different from actually raising it.

[cliffordu]

15. That fucking guy can make the water going down a toilet spin backwards....

[PBS Poll-435]

16. (Only in the Southern Hemisphere)

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

17. That almost brings her back to zero, I think

I sincerely hope that as long as we're allowing rationales other than who wins pledged delegates to be considered someone is considering who has the funding to operate in the general.

[Catherina]

19. Back to zero IF the Chinese check to her private account clears n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

21. It was a cashier's check, thank you very much.

And it did!!!

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[Catherina]

23. I'm not so sure you did but if you want to believe it until next month's numbers come out

Go for it. I just hope Obama's Health Care Plan kicks in before you get too depressed from the disappointment.

[PBS Poll-435]

24. Thanks for your concern!

Have you read April's FEC Reports?

Why does Clinton's "Cash-on-hand" number not equal what is being reported in the media?

Looks to me like she has about 31 million on hand at the end of March...