Was this included in the $13.5MM total? If so, wow....

Yeahh, I'm assuming this was part of their total raise, which would mean their fundraising was pretty bad.

I doubt it was included in the 13.5 million. Those numbers were just what the campaign told reporters, not anything officially reported.

At least, I hope so. Because 6 million to 32 million is painfully embarrassing.

I'm anxious for the MSM take on this...and how it rallies her base.

Does Obama raise the point of his own financial difficulties in the past, his community organizing as an even more poignant example of his ability to connect with/empathize with those who are feeling the pangs of a troubling economy? After all...Hillary may get the support of many working class Dems, but now we can ask why? A person who can dump their own fortune into the purchase of a political office obviously doesn't know what it's like for the rest of us...deciding between milk and bread or childcare.

It's good to have connections in Central Asia, I guess...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bill_in_Central_Asia.html

I guess this is where all of Bill's financial dealings come into play. Juicy!

Excellent point.

Not only is Dubai bailing out Citibank...but they're financing a presidential candidate!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105650/page/2

One possible issue that might have affected Clinton's decision to reconsider his business relationship with Burkle: the financier's ties to the Arab emirate of Dubai. One of Clinton's partners in a Yucaipa fund is the Dubai Investment Group, a company closely linked to Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai's ruler. Clinton and Maktoum have a warm relationship, and the sheik, along with other Middle Eastern leaders, was a major contributor to Clinton's presidential library.

Bill's Dubai connection is potentially problematic for Hillary. Two years ago, the New York senator denounced the Bush administration when it failed to block a deal that would have handed over operations of six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a firm owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. (The company eventually withdrew its bid.) This month, Hillary criticized oil-rich foreign governments that use "huge pools of money" to buy up stakes in major U.S. financial institutions. That's a good applause line—but a tough one to deliver with a straight face while her husband has a business partnership with a similar foreign fund. Mark Saylor, a U.S. spokesman for Dubai, tells NEWSWEEK that neither Dubai nor Maktoum would comment on their dealings with Bill Clinton.

"Haha, Mitt Romney-lite! :P"

Hillary Romney Clinton?

I made another small donation to Obama today, too. Won't it be fun when Hillary's "best fundraising efforts on the web" day still can't keep up with Obama's online fundraising?

This explains why she has started asking for more debates. They are free air time. Obama would be crazy to do any more debates since Hillary is now cash strapped.

Let her apply her thirty five years of experience, and do it the Arkansas, and Huckabee way. Drive around, and Iron her own Pants Suits. Also, tears are great for garnering free TV coverage.

Pace yourself Hillary. It is a long campaign still, and if you shed too many tears too soon, you will run out of nose hairs to pull.

Greg DeL, I was planning on it anyway, but now I may just bump it up a little. Sure would be nice to have $5M to toss around.

Well, I guess this means it's time for us Hillary supporters to put our money where our mouths are. In the past it seemed strange to give money to the "establishment" candidate, the one supposedly raking in all the money from her "shady" connections, but she needs us now. I encourage all her working class supporters to do the same. Time to put a smart, able person in the White House, regardless of whether or not she'd be any fun to have a beer with!

Well, clearly this is going to be decided by superdelegates. Obama, at this point, is the prohibitive favorite to win the pledged delegates based on the favorability of the calendar, but the best case scenario he could hope for is 3/5, which won't be nearly enough to get him over the hump. So what do you think? Where will the superdelegates break?

My guess is that the number one priority for them will be electability, so it's time to start making that argument. For me it's Obama. He'll be competitive in purple states in a way she simply can't be. Her most important wins (Cali, NY, Mass, NJ, NH, etc...) are all states that he can win easily in a general election against McCain. On the other hand, his biggest wins (Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, Iowa) have come in states where she would not be competitive, but he may be. Naturally, there are of course going to be exceptions (Nevada for instance), but this seems to be the trend. I'm not saying he'd win in Kansas or Georgia, but he'd be competitive which is more than we could hope for from her.

Finally, there is of course the polling data. While admittedly, polls have been spotty, the bulk of them show Obama matching up better against McCain than Hillary, though by only a small margin (+2 to 6 points). It's hard to refute the notion that he fairs better against Independents (a strong point for McCain) and even some Republicans, who are less than enamored with their presumptive candidate.

At this point, I have to believe that the Superdelegates will go for Obama, but that familiarity and sense of entitlement and establishment will be hard to overcome. Party insiders are far less likely to fall in love and be swept away by an insurgent candidate.

Tell me what you think; I'll post this as a blog entry if anyone wants to discuss this more.

I have given Obama a total of $100 in two separate donations, one for $75 when he lost NH and a $25 donation last night as I was watching the returns. I suspect there are others like me that can obviously continue to give without reaching the limit. This is what I find so interesting, here you have Obama raising modest amounts from thousands upon thousands of people and then you have HRC who has a ton of big time donors that have already maxed out their $2300 contribution for the year. Gee, i wonder which one will best represent the people?

Here's a crazy question. Why are these candidates so willing to loan their campaigns millions of dollars for a job that pays significantly less than that. Salon's reporting that Clinton now says she'll loan herself up to $20 million if need be. She wouldn't make back anywhere near that amount as President for eight years.

The same goes for Romney.

What's the financial back-end that makes spending $50 million of your own money worth it?

Uh oh, I agree liam that's why she wanted all the stupid debates. Free air time. You had to figure something was up when the clintons didn't advertise in all the 2/5 states and didn't compete in many of them. They are running out of cash. They maxed out there "donors" and spent a ton on the early states going for the knock out and it obviously didn't work. Obama is better equipped for trench warfare and this development increases his chances to prevail.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_weighs_a_selfloan_to_f.php

"They say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform," the former president said.

spirit violated.

Obama will win the superdelegates, because the party has absolutely no reason to prop up a candidate who will be devastating on the ticket in November if she is nominated. She'll kill our chances at the presidency against McCain, and her presence on the ballot will kill us in local and congressional elections all across America as Republicans flock to the polls to destroy the most hated person in politics, for them.

Pure and simple, the obvious choice for voters and for superdelegates is Obama. Anyone voting for Hillary is being shortsighted, like it or not, and they are trying to stick us with a loser for the general election.

Andrew Sullivan linked to an interesting document and made, what I think, is an important note...that Hillary's loan is roughly 4 times Obama's net worth.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/saloncom-presidential-candidates-net-worth/

This grueling battle is exhausting the candidates and the resources of the party and the donors. What if anything will be left to take on McCain?

I would barely be standing if I had had either of their schedules for the past few months.

Once Ohio, Texas,and Pennsylvania are in,the one who is behind needs to concede. If they don't, then the superdelegates and the large donors need to make them. A brokered convention before the convention, essentially. It isn't just Hillary, none of us can afford this.

>Steve M dispute the notion that Obama has more
>cash on hand. Where's the evidence?

>http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/21152/73747

Steve M. forgets to account for the assertion that Hillary has maxed out (or has nearly maxed out) a small pool of big donors while Barack's large pool can continue to donate--if they are able.

"Loan to campaign" = "If I win, I'll use my power to squeeze post hoc donations to my campaign committee out of people and companies it would be embarassing to accept money from now and pay myself back." Goodness me, she really is the change candidate.

Wow, check out all the Obamanoids giving up on the politics of hope in favor of the politics of schadenfreude.

It's like watching a bunch of children trying to nominate a Hallmark card.

I bet this news is just going to crush Hillary's primary fundraising going forward. Self-financed candidates often start to find themselves have trouble raising money. Average supporters don't want to send politicians money to repay their loans. Didn't that hurt Kerry's fundraising for awhile in the Dem primary after he took out his loan?

And I think it goes almost without saying that it wouldn't matter as much IF (big IF) she wins the nomination.

Here's a helpful primer on the Clintons' problem with donors:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e

Publicus--

I don't know many regular folks who pay 1.65 mil for a home. Also, I don't know many regular folks who make shady land deals like the one described above.

Rick Flair FTW!!!

+1

I have noticed Obama ads on TV in my state.

Not a hint of irony that the 'change' candidate is the one spending the most money?

Naw...

I think it's interesting she called it "my money". Presumably its from the $8 million+ book deal. How much more is there, and at what point does it become Bill's Kazakh mining deal money?

It sure is going to suck when one group of us has to suck it up and either support the other one or go away.

Be careful. With this fancy new comments system, we can see everything we've ever written. Bound to make some folks cringe in a couple of months.

I thought they were both busting fundraising records. I guess "more than anyone has raised before" is not enough anymore.

Hillary is simply not wealthy enough to self-fund a campaign a la Mitt Romney. Hillary & Bill are worth about $35 million.

Obama outraised Hillary by almost $20 million in January alone.

If Obama continues to outraise Hillary -- even by $5 or $10 million a month -- Hillary simply won't be able to keep up. She can go personally broke and still be far behind in the money race.

Bubba, can you spare a dime?

Apparently things aren't good in the Clinton headquarters. Folks are working without pay:

http://thepage.time.com/

It is still early and my guess is this fundraising weakness will rebound to her benefit (increased fundraising + sympathetic media). Obama supporters need to stay focused.

Remember New Hampshire.

Like Romney, HC attempts to "buy the job." Talk about lack of credibility. I love it! Reminds me I need to send my next contrib to Obama. Onward!

Sorry! I messed up the link.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

Interesting you update with her statement, but not that some of her staff are going without pay for the rest of the month.

$5,000,000 .....dirty come ....dirty go !!

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform," - Bill Clinton, December 24, 2007.

I can't read through all the comments right now, so I apologize if this is a repeat.

But let's be clear, the Clinton's had no persnoal wealth when Bill left office, and Hillary has been a Senator since that time on a relatively small salary given their lifestyle that also has pretty strict limits on outside income she can earn. So any 'personal' wealth they have is Bill's incomes from his pension, hiis books, and very lucrative speaking and 'consulting' engagements.

If you look back to 2004 you'll note there was a mini-controversy about a mortgage that John Kerry took out on a house he and his Tereza Heinz Kerry lived in. Kerry insisted he was only relying on his assets, and not Tereza's. If Hillary is allowed to do this without a public and press outcry, then she has put women back 30 years by showing that as poor helpless woman she can't run for President on her own, must rely on her man to bring home the bacon so she fry it up in the pan.

If borrowing from your spouse's persnoal fortune is off limits for John Kerry in 2004, then it must be off limits for Hillary in 2008. Pull the plug Hillary, the public tried to send you a message by cutting off their donations, please listen to them and get out of the race gracefully. Obama should win most if not all the contests over the next 7 days, if you can more than 2 of them then drop out.

Obama has now raised $4.8 million since the polls closed. $50 of that was from me.

If he raises another $200k in the next 1 hour 45 minutes, he will have matched Hillary's loan in less than a day. At the rate contributions are coming in (empirically estimated by reloading the fundraising graphic for a few minutes) he is going to blow that number away.

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but how can she compete with that? She can't, but we can.

The timing of this news is not ideal for Hillary. This revelation undercuts some of the momentum she has been touting after Tuesday's victories in California, Massachusetts, & New Jersey. No doubt she get a boost in fundraising after Super Tuesday, but will it be enough to compete with Obama, who also had a good night on Tuesday and should expected to continue his strong fundraising.

It'll be curious to see what impact this news has on the public perception of Hillary's campaign. Usually, news of lackluster fundraising and campaign personnel going unpaid negatively impacts a campaign perception among the public, as well as the media.

Did her campaign put all of its eggs into the Super Tuesday basket, thinking that they'd reap huge victories and huge rewards in fundraising? Maybe. I just keep wondering how much of this is drummed up to generate more money from her supporters and/or bring in new donors... But maybe I'm just too cynical.

If the financial issues are significant, they may explain why she wants more debates. She typically raises a lot of money after her debates.

her net worth is 34 mil