« Bill: I Made A "Mistake" By Defending Hillary; "I Don't Want To Be The Story" | Home | It's Official: Dobson Endorses Huckabee Against McCain »
Hillary Hits Airwaves In Potomac Primary States
With the money race shifting (somewhat) back in Hillary's direction, she goes up on the air in the Potomac Primary states, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., all of which are holding their votes Tuesday.
The ads, which have run before in other states, are both bread-and-butter economy spots portraying her as a steady hand on the tiller during a time of economic crisis. And there's of course the obligatory reference to her "35 years of experience." View them after the jump.
Late Update: Just to clarify, Obama is still significantly ahead financially, but in the last few days Hillary has managed to regain some fundraising momentum that it appeared she'd lost.
Advertisement
On the "money front."
I suppose the only way either candidate's money situation matters in this campaign is the influence it will have on super-delegates.
Oh wait, that might actually turn out to be pretty important.
Thanks for the update on advertisements, Greg. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Obama been up in those states since last weekend? I forgot....
February 8, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just realized Obama's gonna win. I'm weeping with joy as I type...
February 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Your Freudian slip is showing. Shouldn't the phrase be "hand on the tiller" ?
LOL. Obama-snark to begin now in 3-2-1 . . . (Hint - it's an obvious cheap shot to take - don't miss it!)
February 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's been on the air in VA since the end of January with 3 ads, and went on the air in Maryland a few days later.
Interesing wording, Greg. The "money race shifting (somewhat) back" into Clinton's direction? I suppose, in the same way the CBS cameras at the 1973 Belmont shifted back to make sure My Gallant and Sham were still somewhere on the track behind Secretariat....
February 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"With the money race shifting (somewhat) back in Hillary's direction" That sure is a funny way to describe a loss in the fundraising during every time period since the beginning of 2008, but I applaud your creativity. Mabye Obama could start plugging his website in every nationally televised appearance, so that he can keep up his fundraising advantage?
February 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is the "money race" shifting? Somewhat or otherwise?
Did HRC just make up the January gap?
Did Obama stop making money just because he took down the real-time counter on his website?
Curious minds want to know!
February 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I'm not sure what Greg is talking about. Unless he's decided to play along with the expectations game with fundraising too? Hillary isn't as broke as we thought she was so therefore she's winning the money race? That must be it.
February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is reporting the 7.5M Obama raised, but at the time the campaign turned off the live counter, they were still raising money a rapid pace. They could very well be over $10M by since Tuesday by now.
February 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker:
The last I heard, she had raised about $7.1 Million in the same period that Obama had raised about $7.4 Million. That sounds like making up "the gap" to me. In other words, they raised (since Super Tuesday) and have about the same amount of cash to spend going into the coming round of primaries.
February 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. I am unsure of either of these campaigns sincerity in that regard. I've also noted that HRC's $7.1m is from Feb. 1st, and not from Super Tuesday. Somewhere in the last 24 hours, the MSM has lost that.
Oh well, whatever. At least Obama didn't need to give himself $5m for the boost, and didn't have to play media games yesterday to boost the donations.
And, as usual, what matters is the votes.
Any prognostications on ME, NE, LA, or WA out there yet?
February 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
An honest question and not just snark- does she have to take th first $5M to pay back her own loan?
February 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC doesn't have to pay the loan back anytime soon. I had to do some digging to find that out...
February 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Clinton supposedly raised $7.1 million since February 1st, not since Super Tuesday. Since Super Tuesday, she raised about $6 million, so she's at least a million and a half behind Obama if you compare equal time periods.
Secondly, if Obama raised more money than Hillary in January, and then raised more money than Hillary in February, his lead is GROWING, not shrinking. That's just simple math. It may not be growing as fast as it was, but it's still growing, so the gap is widening. The only way Clinton can close the gap is if she starts raising MORE money than Obama. That's not unthinkable (she did it last year, after all), but let's not pretend that "losing by less" is the same as "winning."
February 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee colonpowwow, I thought that he raised 32 mill in january and she raised 13 mill and had to loan the campaign 5 mill to keep going, but who's counting.
Also, wolfson said the amount raised after super tuesday was between 3 and 6 or was it 2 or who knows? Penn said she didn't lend the campaign cash and then 2 hours later she lent 5 mill. In the morning the campaign staff was working for free and in the afternoon they were getting paid. I wouldn't believe a word the clinton campaign says anyway. No credibility.
Finally, I really don't care about the money issue as long as they both have enough to go on, which they do. It's really a waste of time, but at least get the facts straight colonpowwow.
February 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has to con her low info supporters into ponying up cash by saying her staff is going unpaid and she lent herself $5 million dollars. It's a pretty obvious ploy but will she get called on it? Of course not.
February 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish we could have actual on-hand dollar figures, however, I believe at this time, it is both speculative and presumptuous to say that any candidate has a "fundraising lead." You see, there is evidence of a "lead" for Obama, however, nothing that even comes close to even a clear and convincing standard of proof on that one.
I think the evidence suggests only that Obama has raised more money in 2008, maybe even by a significant margin. However, how much as he spent?
How much has HRC spent?
How much is in the bank? How much are they in debt?
I think money might actually be a problem for both candidates, right now. How many field offices are currently set up in Texas or Ohio that are paid for by the campaigns? Or are we past such abstractions?
As usual, I posit many more questions than assertions. Anyone have any clue on this stuff?
February 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't see how it is shifting in her direction supposedly. Aside from her "money woes" which were apparently mostly hype, she hasn't made any big comeback that I've seen. Obama still leads in delegates, leads in states, leads in money and is poised, in theory, to win the the next 6 states. Nothing favors Hillary there.
February 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Michael A., you're right about January fundraising. Only thing is, I was referring to right now and going into the next round of primaries.
Hey, BTW, do you know how much personal cash the Kerrys poured into his campaigns? This is a very, very bad thing to do. Ask former Senator Mark Dayton as well. Just astounding and unheard of!
She ONLY raised $13 million in January to which she added $5 Million of her own money (they probably possess about a net worth of about %30-50 Million, I think).
Thanks for the info, though.
February 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the self-financing didn't work very well for Kerry, in the end. Worked in the primaries, but failed in the GE.
Mark Dayton won his senate seat off the Dayton family fortune, but so what. Not a very good example from a weak, one-term senator. At least Amy won his seat, though. Thank goodness.
Another HRC advantage- she has personal wealth. Though Obama himself is personally wealthy (relatively --> compared to me), there is no way (from what I have seen) that he could give himself $1m, much less $5m, without ruining himself.
Thus, an inherent HRC advantage in this race. Obama has been coming from behind the entire time in this race, and to pull up to a tie with HRC is quite an amazing feat. What saddens me is that many observers have missed this point in the face of political campaign tunnel vision (both HRC and Obama supporters).
Maybe a good time to borrow a page from JRE's book and hit some populist themes? Seems like a door opened for him on this one by HRC's campaign. What do you think?
February 8, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, ok colonpowwow where did I say it was a bad thing to lend cash to her own campaign? My point was the credibility issue. Why do you distort things all the time?
February 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
wwjb:
Nice spin. Actually, depending on how you choose to count them, Hillary is leading in delegates - mostly because she's also leading in the number of victories secured in large Democratic-voting states. Obama has, indeed, padded his delegate count (fairly, absolutely) by securing huge margins in such Hillary-hating, Democratic strongholds as Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, and Georgia.
February 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Minnesota too. Man, those guys (meaning us) have a long history of hating the Clintons, don't they?
February 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably going to be a double post. This commenting system sucks.
Wow, colonpowwow, where exactly did I say it was a bad thing to lend money to her campaign? The point was the total lack of credibility. BTW, why do you always distort things? I really don't get it.
February 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the $5m loan should legitimize complaints that tax documents and the like have not been released by HRC. Where did she get the money from?
Works for fundraising, yes, but I think the media (and BO oppo reasearch, if that exists) has an opportunity to dig into it.
February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reporting on the financial status of both campaigns has been pretty terrible, as far as I can tell. How much trouble was Clinton actually in? If, all of a sudden, she's having success online, what changed? What were they doing wrong before that they have started doing right now, and will they be able to continue to build on this success or not? How much of an advantage does Obama have? Will Clinton's more successful fundraising allow her to compete in more states, or is she still desperately playing catch-up? Which states in particular is this likely to make a difference in? Clinton's finances sounded like they were in bad shape there; were they really? Has she really turned things around? Is her fundraising continuing apace, or has it slowed significantly? Answers to any of these questions would be helpful...however, most of what I've read on the subject seems to be basically Clinton spin, without much questioning from reporters. My guess is that, despite the recent fundraising success, she's still in a hole, and is going to have trouble keeping up with him in television and organization, especially in smaller states. But I wish somebody would do some actual reporting and find the answers to these questions.
February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note,, as I said above. It's the votes that matter, not the money, in the end.
Obama has a 15-19 point lead in Virginia, whether you are looking at InsiderAdvantage or SurveyUSA. WOW.
Looking forward to the results this weekend and numbers on Wisconsin and Maryland. Then we'll start talking Texas/Ohio.
February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money race shifting (somewhat)?
Where do you come up with this?
Running the math and being conservative, Obama raised over $1 million/day in January. For the month of February that would have put over $5 million in his pocket before Super Tuesday. In 48 hours after Super Tuesday, he raised nearly $8 million counting the Moveon money and adding it to the point where his counter was turned off. If you go back to being conservative after he turned off the counter, he packs away another $2 million.
That adds up to $15 million from where I sit. Clinton reported $7.2 million.
Money race shifting, indeed. Could you give me a spin on the merry-go-round you used to turn that phrase?
February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to sing Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead.
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Mayor
As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.
Barrister
But we've got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor
To see?
Barrister
If she
Mayor
If she?
Barrister
Is morally, ethic'lly
Father No.1
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
Munchkins
Undeniably and reliably Dead
Coroner
As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead.
Mayor
Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendants
Barrister
If any.
Mayor
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last id dead!
The problem is that Hillary reminds me more of Michael Myers in Halloween. Ironically Hillary wears a similar mask
February 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone in the MSM and the blogosphere is mostly ignoring the real story, either because they're embarrased or because they don't mind having been used as long, as the user was Smart Savvy Hillary doing something oh-so-Smart and Savvy.
Let us rewind. Serveral days ago, when the story was turning to Obama's fundraising spike, we hear that Hill's top people had had their salary cut off. Then Mark Halpirin, seemingly out of the blue, asks whether Hillary is self-funding. Wolfson said he'd find out, comes back and says, yes, Billary loaned the campaign 5 million bucks. All the MSM went "oooh, that Halpirin is sure a Smart Savvy guy, or he must have really good sources." Hill's campaign must be in financial trouble.
Hillary then announces that her own fundraising had suddenly spiked. Next we hear that that loan to the campaign was repayable within 48 hours of Super Tuesday.
Official word out from Camp Sayanythingdoanything now is "oooh, we really didn't need that loan and we didn't really cut off our staff's salary, it was all just a little trick we played on our donors to get them to open up their wallets."
One would think that the press response would be "hmm, either they lied to us back when they hinted they were in financial trouble, or they're lying to us now when they say they were never in trouble, but either way, they lied to us, they used us and we don't like it."
Instead, we get either deafening silence or else a sly "tee hee hee, they're so Smart and Savvy."
Yep, that MSM has some wicked mean hate goin' for poor, poor Hillary, all right.
February 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some many angles to cover here:
a) The real story about raising money (a few weeks ago) was to show a grass roots support for Obama. People also noticed a jump in his fund raising after the NH loss. In other words, it wasn't so much about the money raised (except that he was able to match Clinton's machine) but how and when it came in. In that case, it is very significant he didn't have to "trick" his supporters to donate.
b) How much money is left in anyone's coffers is somewhat irrelevant. Romney donated about 1/3 of his own money into his campaign and is now withdrawn. Huckabee's campaign only had about 1/3 of what Romney put into his own and is still moving on! So that part of the story (money=influence) is somewhat bogus as there is only a very loose connection. The real story here is that Obama has gotten many people to volunteer for the first time and canvasing will help tremendously.
c) Is anyone else disturbed that if HRC has no problem duping her supporters into donating that she will have no problem duping us into voting for her? The leap isn't that difficult.
February 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some many angles to cover here:
a) The real story about raising money (a few weeks ago) was to show a grass roots support for Obama. People also noticed a jump in his fund raising after the NH loss. In other words, it wasn't so much about the money raised (except that he was able to match Clinton's machine) but how and when it came in. In that case, it is very significant he didn't have to "trick" his supporters to donate.
b) How much money is left in anyone's coffers is somewhat irrelevant. Romney donated about 1/3 of his own money into his campaign and is now withdrawn. Huckabee's campaign only had about 1/3 of what Romney put into his own and is still moving on! So that part of the story (money=influence) is somewhat bogus as there is only a very loose connection. The real story here is that Obama has gotten many people to volunteer for the first time and canvasing will help tremendously.
c) Is anyone else disturbed that if HRC has no problem duping her supporters into donating that she will have no problem duping us into voting for her? The leap isn't that difficult.
February 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I cannot speak for anyone but myself but, no, I am not disturbed by that thought. I am, indeed, somewhat bemused by my fellow democrats who think that a politician stretching the truth is somehow unconscionable. All's fair in love and war as they say. I suppose that I would balk at a candidate who was willing to pay a hit man to assasinate his/her opponent, but otherwise I want someone who plays to win. If Clinton can raise money by faking a damsel-in-distress, this counts as a mark in her favor in my book. As it happens, I already voted for Obama and continue to prefer him, but I cannot understand why I am expected to desire to punish Clinton's strength, ingenuity and success.
February 8, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true, very true.
I also like your "duping-theory."
February 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like assurances that the 7 million she raised since tuesday is all available for her primary. She's proven she has no problem being loose with the truth and it was reported months ago that she has quite a few donors maxed out.
"I raised 7 million!*"
February 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHY DO MY COMMENTS NEVER WORK?!?!
I would like assurances that the 7 million she raised since tuesday is all available for her primary. She's proven she has no problem being loose with the truth and it was reported months ago that she has quite a few donors maxed out.
"I raised 7 million!*"
February 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe so. Governed by traditional rules of contract, I think, so she makes her own terms to "herself."
February 8, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest count from CNN which is more reliable than PMS-NBC becasue it is actual count and not projection garbage:
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 840 Superdelegates: 193Total: 1,033Barack Obama
Pledged: 831 Superdelegates: 106Total: 937
Mathematically he won't be able to overcome the disadvantage. Proportonal devision of delegates is 2 edge sword that u guys didin't realize when u were touting it. Just look at results in AL where HRC got more delegates just like in NV BHO got more.
So in total remaining will be split 50-50%.
So u guys can only pray for supergelegates changing, better be a good prayer.
He is behind in in pedged delegates also. I am waiting for the great entertainment from u whiners when BHO loses by a few delegates.
February 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the size of the buy? I mean if she runs 1 ad, it's not doing much.
February 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>All's fair in love and war as they say. I suppose that I would balk at a candidate who was willing to pay a hit man to assasinate his/her opponent, but otherwise I want someone who plays to win.
Wow, you must have *really* loved George Bush!
Bush-Rove
Clinton-Penn
Similar methods bring similar results.
If she's nominated and wins, will it be similar governance? You bet.
Some see these strategies as "brilliant" and applaud. Others see anything won this way as utterly meaningless and ultimately as big a danger to our country as terrorism. What happens to a democracy when the citizens can no longer trust anything their leaders tell them?
For that matter, what happens to the leader's judgment and creative thinking when they anything they want to do they can accomplish by lying? Where is the clear line that stops them from building up to that assination you speak of? If there are no rules, there are no limits.
There's a reason Clinton spends so damn much time focusing on Obama, trying to trip him up, trying to put him down, and so on. Aside from a laundry list of proposals that is necessary window dressing, she really has **nothing** of substance to say. At the heart of it, all she (or GWB) know how to do is fight and (most of the time) win.
I'm praying not this time, however. If there was ever a time for a change in leadership methods.... I wish they would forget the winning and concentrate on the governing.
February 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
so Obama has been raising $1 million per day OR MORE sinceJanuary 1, 2008
hillary has been raising half a million per day in the same time period
splain to me again how hillary is catching up ???
did you ever work on a bush budget or something ???
cuz losing by 50% every day isn't a way to catch up on my planet
February 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's people are now whining that they should have a revote in Fla.
Why should they get a re-do? Should Hillary get a re-do in her choice of states, like say, Missourie which was razor close?
She took Fla. by over 50 % to Obama's 33%. Neither were allowed to
campaign and therefore they had equal oppty. there.
Except, it wasn't really equal. Obama's ads ran in Fla. He had cable t.v. ads,that couldn't be limited by state, so the ads ran in Fla.
Clinton, had NO ads running. So if anyone had an advantage, it was
Obama. Yet Clinton still won by close to 20% margin.
Now that the race is getting close, it looks like they will have to allow Fla.'s votes to be counted. Yet Obama is whining for a re-do and
trying to set himself up to yell foul.
Whine, whine, whine. I'm sorry but its always a one sided deal with Obama.
Rae
February 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. No one is saying "well, it looks too close so we need a tie-breaker; how about FL." Rather, what folks are saying is "what will we do if there is one result with FL and a different result without; that would be horrible." What we do not want is a convention where two candidates each have a plausible claim to the nomination so that either outcome will result in a large group of democrats perceiving themselves to have been robbed.
Not quite. It is the DNC, not the Obama campaign, which is floating the idea of a do-over caucus. I am not aware that the Obama campaign has expressed any opinion whatever on this proposal.
February 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why is Clinton refusing to release her tax returns until "after she is elected." Obama has released all of his tax returns.
I wonder what mysteries lurk in her IRS file? Sure blows the cover on her "I am the vetted candidate."
February 9, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a message out there for everyone who hasn't donated to Obama yet.
I'm going to donate $10 today -- up to a max. of $500 -- for everyone out there who makes their first donation to his campaign, and replies back with a *ding!*
Any takers? Anyone else want to match my pledge to encourage other firsttime Obama donors?
February 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,
I just matched that with HILLARY !
Yeah Hillary ! You Go Girl !
First Woman elected as President of U.S. 2008 !
February 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink