So, I think the headline should read "Obama raises 7 million" rather than "Hillary raises 4 million."

But...I'm biased

the Hillary campaign has raised roughly $4 million since the polls closed, the Clinton campaign tells us.

So that would be "roughly" half of what he has raised, then.

The Hillary camp is also claiming 35,000 new donors in the past 48 hours.

So at this rate her donor base will catch up to his (now over 600,000) in, what, about 2010?

GREAT NEWS
i coontributed to HILLARY

imagine all this money and he did'nt win decisivlly on tuesday ...
now imagine him without all this money she would've swept the floor with him...

the elitists 100,000 plus are his donors....

she will fight for the poor

Health care is my greatest issue....

I love how Hillary supporters think that Obama's fundraising boost in one month should have made him win everything. Gotta love the Hillbot understanding of politics, somehow they think a few endorsements and some cash should equal a sweeping victory in the course of 2 weeks, coming from a huge disadvantage, and when he only jumps 20 points in a few weeks instead of 30 or 40 somehow that makes him a failure? HAHA, right.

And by the way, I'm ready for 100% mandatory public financing of campaigns after this election, because the money being pumped into the media from this crap is disgusting.

Health care is my greatest issue....
Posted by yityyl
February 7, 2008 10:03 AM

Especially staying on the Clinton campaign health plan for a little longer....LOL. I love my country.

If you read her campaign finance filings things were not as dire as the blogs and Obama wished to make them appear.

If I were Obama I'd spend less time worrying about Hillary's money and more time worrying about why the African American vote in California didn't come out for me.

So they are just a million short of paying back Clinton's loan.

In my informal survey hillary supporters tend to do it for "knee jerk" reasons. "She's been through so much" (from a couple of women who have also "been through so much" and one literal admission of prejudice against a black person ... surprised me... but there it was. and low-wage workers who just "know" the Clinton name). I realize this is perhaps not the norm. But it makes me sad to think how many may vote without information. And all of these individuals, if they vote (cuz I'm not sure they actually will) certainly have no money to give their preferred candidate. Also sad.

she won the popular vote on TUESDAY get it staright . knock it in your head ....

and despite all that mometum going for OBAMA in the last two weeks before SUPER TUESDAY she still beat him...

now if you will say that according to some news sources he won the delegate count (by a slummy few) on THAT DAY , then i say to you :
SHE IS LEADING THE OVERALL DELEGATE COUNT with th supers included

and she is the UNDERDOG...

health care is my greatest issue
somehow i fell OBAMA just doesn't care aboutthat issue alot , he only has a plan ( astupid sad one according to PAUL KRUGMAN) because he needs to have one, but SHE ,SHE will roll up her sleaves and pattionattlly work and shvits for us on this issue.....

A message For America's Undecided...
Hillary Clinton

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA

Obama at $7,358,814 as I write at 10:21 EST

I've seen several analyses of both Obama's adn Clinton's plans for the poor and working class that were far more favorable to Obama's plans.

She already failed once on healthcare by trying to do everything in secret. What makes you think she can get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster? I can't imagine her getting enough Republican votes to pass her plan.

OK, so Hillary can now afford to buy TV time, instead of trying to change the Debate terms that she had agreed to, just to get more free TV time. The Clintons never stick to the terms of what they sign on to.

No more debates. Dear Hillary, Go FOX yourself!

yityyl if healthcare is your greatest issue wouldn't you want a candidate who is working to bring us an actual working majority in congress to get it passed? With her lawsuits attempting to suppress Democratic votes in IA and NV, shutting the doors early on 1600 caucus goers in Vegas, her dirty tactics elsewhere and all the baggage, old and new she and Bill have accumulated she's trying to narrow the Dem voting base down in the primaries as much as possible so she can win.

She won't bring indie and disgruntled Repub votes in for the general and if nominated her strategy would be 50% +1 against McCain. The only thing that will galvanize the Republican party is Hillary Clinton as our nominee. The only thing that will demoralize the Democratic base is Hillary Clinton as our nominee, especially the way she's trying too win it.

Obama is the opposite, he can win a huge mandate and bring with him many new Dem house reps and senators we'll need to make the changes we need. Hillary won't even try.

Alex Witt on MSNBC just reported that the fundraising figure for Clinton was closer to $3 million. Then, while interviewing Howard Wolfson, Witt could not confirm that the $5 million loan to the campaign came directly from Hillary.

Great post about Clinton's loan to her campaign:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/corruption_in_washington_/2008/02/hrcs_loan_the_ethics_and_the_optics.php

Assertions, assertions, assertions. No one here seems to provide facts.

"He will...."

"She will..."

How do you all know? This is given you can trust EITHER of them.

I'm glad that both are able to raise funds to continue their pursuit of the nomination. I think that little has been paid attention to their respective fundraising decisions. She has had the advantage of having the established political machine behind her (being related to the de facto head of the democrat party) This establishment has their own agenda and has more often than not cast off the grassroot movements as unimportant and characterized them as the 'fringe' of the party. The grassroot organizations (admittedly more progressive)have in turn really been able to make their voice heard via blogs, support of candidates, etc. and have been pushing back against the discourse that their voices are unimportant.

It is only after I read the numerous articles yesterday that it cements what I have thought all along. When Hillary's campaign announced that they were seeking donations to the tune of 3 million and the Obama supporters replied with over double that amount, this isn't just a battle between two candidates vying for the party nomination. This as a battle between the political machine of old and the grassroots movement over not only the presidential race but ultimately the direction of the party.

billysumday, that was with a big dem majority in the house and 57 senators. Then in 1994, the dems lost both the house and senate. Hmmm, not a very good track record for what may come in 08 if she's the nominee nor is it a good indicator of how she will deal with congress.

The very notion that Clinton would break with the party and run as an independent is unthinkable. Neither she nor her husband (not even their dog if they own won)could ever ever enter a Democratic event for the rest of their lives. Many Democrats of New York State (of which I am one} would also would also initiate a grass roots recall movement. This ain't gonna happen so forget about it.

At least she is trying to insure everyone, freeze interest rates so people may get to keep the houses that they worked hard to get. All I hear out of Barack Obama is that he is another Uniter, like the one we got in 2000. Then he keeps polarizing the party with his "Hillary's voters will vote for me but My voters won't vote for Hillary". Could you imagine if Hillary, or Bill Clinton would have said that, the partisan members of this blog would have had a field day. This is a campaign to make this country better than George W Bush has left it, and to find the best candidate for the job. Do you honestly think, and try to put all partisanship aside, that coments like her people will vote for me, but my people won't vote for her, is best for America to move Forward. May God save us all.

If Clinton runs as an independent, I'll write in Joe Lieberman.

Does the 4 million Hillary raised include any of the 5 million she loaned her own campaign?

I have a question for Greg Sargent, and it is intended without any snark whatsoever:

If someone in the Clinton campaign confirms to you that she has raised over $4 million since Tuesday night, then why would Howard Wolfson refuse to confirm the $3 millon number this morning on MSNBC when he was asked point blank about it by a friendly interviewer?

I don't understand they are saying one thing to you guys and another thing to the other media.

Any thoughts?

I'm sure the Clinton camp was expecting a bump in fundraising after the polls closed. The $5 million was probably an investment in her candidacy calculated at what she would need given the additional money.

Did she donate because she is falling short in cash on hand, or was the $5m intended to compensate for a gap in small-dollar donations for the rest of the week?

Why does TPM place the article,
"Hillary's Raised $4 Million Since Super Tuesday"
ABOVE
"Obama's Raised Over $7 Million"
(with the Obama headline in smaller print too)

Seems like that same consistent theme here at TPM supporting Clinton over Obama.

Go Obama Go!
Barb (KC, MO)

Um, if Obama had won MA, you'd be singing the opposite tune...so much for "hillbots" robotObamas are supporting a candidate that they know nothing about...i.e., his campaigning tactics for the state senate/national senate.

Good luck with the Howard Dean-type hype.

Odd how Clinton's fundraising numbers are coming via unnamed and unofficial sources while Obama's showing his right on his website. The only reference I find on her site is Wolfson's claim on her blog this morning: "The response has been overwhelming - stay tuned for more."

Ummm...keep counting - I just heard a total on the radio - looking for confirmation that Hillary is up to 6 million.

Keep hope alive Obama supporters - he's going to make a great VP and eventually a great President. I'm happy to vote for him at the top of the ticket in 2016.

We most remember what is new in this Presidential campaign. The Democratic Party has attracted an overwhelming infusion of new voters to participate in the primary process. By their nature of being NEW these voters are not tied to party allegiances. Most have been motivated by a shared interest to move beyond the Political Doctrine of the last eight years. They are not united by the idea of Democrats taking over the White House. However, they are united behind a desire for fundamental changes in the political system, e.g., the same system, practices, and behavior that produced a war in Iraq, was not capable of responding to the needs of a disaster at home in New Orleans, has not produced a viable healthcare solution, nor has it responded to global warming, or been able to push out the monied interests of Lobbyists, or the Rovean practices of political partisanship. Additionally, this system has set-aside facts and efficient solutions in favor of pay-backs for those monied interests.

The Democratic Party has also attracted an overwhelming infusion of grass-root financial support for Barack Obama. In contrast to Hillary Clinton’s donors list most of Barak Obama’s contributions have come in small increments from broad base supporters - a value very consistent with the ideas of democracy.

Yesterday we learned Hillary and Bill Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million in the final days leading up to Super Tuesday in an effort to keep up with Barak Obama’s overwhelming financial support. As a loan Hillary and Bill’s contribution to her campaign places a marker down, from this day forward, whether she and Bill will eventually call in that loan. That places into question the next $5 million in contributions. Will the contributions from this day forth go to repay the loan or future loans or will it go into the campaign? I guess that depends on whether Hillary wins the nomination.

As the Beatle's wrote Money can't buy you love.

Reliable Gallup shows Hillary on the rise, takes 13-point lead in national polling

http://hinessight.com/

In 12 of 14 Super Tuesday states for which exit polls were conducted by MSNBC, Hillary won a majority of voters who made up their minds on Election Day. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oklahoma. [msnbc.com]
Election Day
State Clinton Obama
AL 58 39
AZ 31 46
AR 60 24
CA 51 43
CT 51 43
DE 55 45
GA 47 45
IL 50 42
MA 58 38
MO 47 49
NJ 53 40
NM 53 42
NY 51 42
TN 47 47

This story is not valid!!! Howard Wolfson from the Clinton Camp was on MSNBC this AM and he said he did not say they made this amount or even if they made 3 Million in one day. He said he would have "those figures later in the day".

Jeeesus H, Greg. Last I heard, $7.8M is bigger than $4M... you could at least have the decency of using the same font size for Obama!

It's so bizarre that Obama supporters mistake a great talent for inspirational speaking for the proven ability to get things done, an ability Hillary has in abundance (I know this as a New Yorker)

I have watched HRC give an "inspirational" speech in 2002, which she claimed was the hardest decision in her life -- on the vote to authorize force in Iraq -- and she didn't even do her homework by reading the NIE.

Can we be honest here?

HRC voted in her first term in Congress with an eye to running in 2008 (her first real opportunity without it looking too obvious as to why she became a Senator in NY).

HRC refuses to admit that the vote for Iraq was a mistake for fear of being tagged as a flip-flopper.

HRC now claims that GWB "duped" her.

Does this speak to her intelligence? Her insight into doing due diligence? To vote her conscious?

MLK talked about being judged by the content of one's character.

And all my points just relate to one vote; the "hardest" decision she made.

Had she really voted her conscious, she could have stood out, delivered an impassioned speech, and maybe even found herself on the wrong side of things in 2002.

But then she would have been on the right side of things in 2008.

The evidence is that Hillary doesn't want to be a leader. She only wants to be President.

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

As of this very day, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush still agree that her vote to authorize the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was not a Reckless, and Catastrophic mistake. George and Hillary never make mistakes.

That's funny, I find it bizarre that Hillary's supporters can't distinguish between "futile flailing" and "fighting," (clue: the latter actually manages to win and, having one, stops fighting; between talking to Bill about stuff he was doing and getting things done herself, between big mounds of policy white papers and actual vision, and between the difference between what it takes to be a great middle manager and what it takes to be a great CEO.

The GOP is splitting at the seams over McCain. Are we splitting along Barack and Hillary? Seems like a great opportunity for a Bloomberg run. It's time to shift our focus to the very real issue of electability in November. Who looks best against McCain?

McCain has taken no lobby or PAC money, neither has Obama.

McCain has been a war supporter from the beginning. Obama has been against it from the start.

McCain hasn't buckled in his opposition to torture. Hillary gave Bush more "benefit of the doubt"

McCain draws in independents and swing voters (partly because he is so hated by the evangelicals.) Obama brings in independents and swing voters. Hillary brings out a lot more people who will vote just to blunt her chances at the presidency.

I like both candidates, but I think the choice is pretty clear.

We need to start moving the conversation towards the core issue of electability.

Greg, you have entered truly pathetic territory. Your opinion article about MSNBC is utter trash. You are so much more biased than even Chris Matthews! You give Taylor Marsh as a valid source??? I'll let you know when I stop laughing.

I love the work that Josh Marshall does, why he has you on here ruining his site I cannot comprehend for the life of me. Whatever his own biases, he does at least attempt to be neutral. You, however, are a shill.

See anneeliz, you are thinking too much. Just get on the clintons' bandwagon and believe anything they say, regardless of the facts. Don't think so much. Get with the program.

That's great!
Hillary can stay behind in the Senate, and introduce legislation to push HER health care plan. That is, after all, where bills get introduced...In the legislative branch.

I'd rather capture the WH in 08. Hillary will not be able to beat McCain. Period.

The right will take up right where they left off in 99 in rallying against the Clintons.
Whitewater
Lewinski
Vince Foster, etc.

If obama supporters don't condemn stuff like this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4257358&page=1

we're all doomed.

1)Clinton was short on primary cash; not General Election cash, so she donated 5 mil to her campaign. At this point, staffers offered to work without pay...it was never stated by the campaign that it was actually occurring...surprise, media!

2)When supporters realized she was short on funds, we donated after their email requesting a contribution..as I did, which, voila, 4 mil was raised..

Yet ABC calls it a "stunt"?!

DISGUSTING!

That's great!
Hillary can stay behind in the Senate, and introduce legislation to push HER health care plan. That is, after all, where bills get introduced...In the legislative branch.

I'd rather capture the WH in 08. Hillary will not be able to beat McCain. Period.

The right will take up right where they left off in 99 in rallying against the Clintons.
Whitewater
Lewinski
Vince Foster, etc.

Posted by JohnDoe

Ok JohnDoe, what will the republicans attack Obama on?

Go ahead...name some things. Now, draw down deep, and imagine the things that haven't made it to the surface yet...Dems generally keep things light, and aren't that great at tripping each other up over a "strategy" such as the republicans usually run with..."willie horton"

I'm TELLING YOU that Hillary is the strongest candidate to win...Obama will trip and buckle.

Here ya go...vet this:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=34374

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008/On_the_war_in_Iraq

The SAME MEDIA WHO DIDN'T QUESTION BUSH are propelling Obama to the front by their biased coverage...an easy win for McCain.

Instead of donating to Hillary, I'd like Bill And Hillary to donate money to me, since their collective sponsoring of NAFTA in the 1990s led to MILLIONS of American jobs being shipped overseas.

Oh yeah, but she's pro American worker, right?
Pro union too, even though she served on Walmart's board of directors.

Perhaps Hillary can get money from hubby Bill Clinton's foundation, since he just received a 30 million dollar donation from a Kazakstanian dictator pal of his, who coincidently granted one of Bill's friends lucrative oil rights.

Don't you just love the Clinton penchant for backroom dealing?

Sad how my post got responses--but all on the horse race aspect...An important point on policy is that Hillary is proposing universal health care--Obama is not. In negotiations you tend to get less than you are asking for. Since his opening position leaves out 27 million people (per MIT study--which is not linked to any campaign), how much progress will really be made from current 47 million uninsured?

Why do we want a candidate that wants to 'negotiate' with people that want to dismantle the social safety net? It is naive and arrogant to think that one special person has the capacity to get others to "see it your way."

I am sorry that both Democrats are not in favor of full universal coverage--this should be central to our party's position.

As for the politics of it, no offense to anyone, but Obama really doesn't strike me as particularly "uniting." His lofty speeches strike me as condescending and vapid.