Moveon.org endorses Obama!!!

4Q07 is so last year. How did she do in January 2008?

Hey, I gave both times. After NH because I was recoiling in horror and after SC because I was really pissed off at Bill.

Interesting, but unsurprising, how both of them sagged from the preceding quarter during Christmas shopping season.

Do you guys really think this is a headline to say that Hillary outraised Obama in the 4th QTR by a measly few million when he surpassed the 4th Qtr totally in ONE MONTH?

whiterosebuddy

"at the prospect they might lose" ... the race is over. Hillary / Obama is the ticket.

How much of that money was siphoned through Kazahstan, I wonder?

I wish someone could do a supporter specific ratio. I mean it really comes down to votes doesnt it?

100 donors @ $25 bucks a piece is a lot more votes than 1 donor @ 2500.

So I am just wondering. How many donors does Hillary have vs Obama? It would also be interesting to know the average donation amount per candidate.

I'm just saying that I am willing to be Obama has multiple times the amount of donors with smaller donations.

It is more interesting that Ron Paul raised 20m in the 4th quarter.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President..”
- Hillary Clinton 2002, floor speech right before the war authorization.

"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
– Obama 2002
Now I ask you - Where did Obama get his information about "Iraq economy in shambles"? How did he find out that its military was "a fraction of its former self"? Why did he think that the international community could contain him?

Obama did independent research to find out these things! Then used common sense and deductive reasoning.

Hillary did not read the NIE. The information in her floor speech was taken from the rhetoric the Bush Administration spoon fed her. Her EXPERIENCE in the white house had actually clouded her judgement. While others may have looked with a critical eye, Hillary was judging the info by what the CIA used to be under Bill. Thus she regarded the info as accurate.

Vote Judgement - Vote Obama

I agree with the previous post. "Obamaniacs just can't accept even slightly positive news for Hillary even if it is immaterial in larger context." I am still undecided, but all this hate and animosity might backfire on the Dems come November.

Our friend "Guest #4" is obviously upset. Deep down, we know that she knows her horse can't win in a general election.

She's further frustrated that four years ago, no one outside of Illinois would have predicted an Obama run in 2008. Illinois knew better and now America is showing it has a soul, and is preparing to vote for a candidate who has one as well.

Any angry Clinton supporter who posts with such venom is dealing with sour grapes because their master plan is falling apart. The real heart of the democratic party never died, it just stopped beating for about 16 years. Today, it's fired up and ready to go.

Si se puete!

Obamaniacs are so crazed...it is like someone reached into their brains and cut out the power of reason.

If he raises money well, it is because everyone loves him and he is a saint. If she raises money well, it is because it was siphoned through Kazakhstan. Yet these same people purport to support a candidate that calls for change and hope. What a sham - you are more old school than Hillary could ever try to be (see Ted Kennedy endorsement).

Why don't you begin the change you so desperately seem to want by cleaning up your own act and thinking instead of acting on some irrational, visceral emotion.

"Ted Kennedy calling for change in Washington is like Michael Jackson calling for reform in child protection laws."

Among the Democrats, there "is" a difference between the level of support for each of these candidates. From what I can gather, those that are "pro" Hillary, do not "hate" Barack Obama. Conversely...those "Obamaniacs" referred to in some previous posts have "disdain" for Hillary Clinton. Soooo, think about it, "in the larger context," after we have decided upon a candidate, who has the best chance to receive the most support in the form of "VOTES" on election day...not just from Democrats, but from Independents? Get real... Hillary, even if you like her, is damning to our chances to re-gain the white house. Let's WIN this time folks!!! Support OBAMA to win in November!!!

It seems to me the real question here is who has the cash advantage right now?

Hillary's cash on hand advantage on 12/21 was rought $5 million

Obama raised $32 million+ in January (probably more, as they had a major online push after the announcement yesterday)

Unless Hillary raised $27 million in January alone, Obama has the money advanatge right now.

Given that Hillary isn't saying much about how her January fundrasing stacks up with Obama's, and the fact that Obama is on TV in far more states, including post super-Tuesday states, it seems safe to assume that Obama has taken a serious advantage in the money game.

The money will be close, too close for it to be a big advantage.

Was Hillary's 27 million for the primary or for the primary + the general election? Hillary's been shifty about that when reporting her fundraising totals.

That is a pretty slim margin of victory for HIllary. I would regard them as essentially tied, and wonder how Hillary compared to Obama in the Jan figures.

The republicans want to run against Hillary, they're counting on it because they know that will bring out their base and turn away many independents from voting democratic.

I can't understand why ardent Hillary Clinton supporters don't seem to accept this.

And Bill Clinton is a loose cannon. We cannot win the White House with Bill Clinton displaying like a peacock and making policy on the fly that he is not free to make. Don't you think the republicans will have a field day with the Mrs. and Mr. presidency? I think they will. I voted for Bill Clinton twice but believe in term limits.

Actually, it would be nice to know how much of the money Clinton and Obama raised in the 4th quarter, and how much of 32+ million (I assume it's more now since the Obama campaign passed the 250,000 donor mark yesterday) that Obama raised in January is for the primary or for the general election.

Pure speculation here, but the fact that Obama's campaign was willing to pay 250K for an ad to air during the Super Bowl in MA (I think) while Clinton's campaign is not doing so suggests that she has less money to spend on the primary. She could also just not want to spend 250K on an ad, which is reasonable enough.

On a related note, given the dismal sales figures for the 4th quarter, the fact that these two raised so much money is a testament to how involved people are in this election.

Gentlemen, please! For several years now I have turned to TPM as a useful filter for news headlines on topics related to politics. Now we are getting propaganda. "Hillary raised more than Obama in 2007." Is this a news headline, coming AFTER we learned that Obama raised about 2X as much in one month as any other candidate known, ever, and from a huge mass of contributors able to keep on giving in small increments. Surely the "news" of the last quarter of 2007 has long, long been outdated by January figures. PLUS, there is Moveon.org's endorsement of Obama by a 7-3 margin--relegated to a secondary headline--which provides our most concrete indication so far about where John Edwards's consistent 15% (+/-) is trending.

Featuring the Hillary 4th quarter figures as the MAIN HEADLINE only underscores how desperate her campaign--or her campaigners--must be growing.

If TPM has become an outpost of Hillary for President, surely it would be better to be up front about that, rather than dropping hint after hint after hint, and thereby losing your credibility as journalists. And surely that would be preferable to having your readers come to think that your journalistic judgment is simply clouded (not to say incompetent) which would undercut everything on the entire site!

As a fan and longtime user, I plead with you to sit back and reconsider where you are taking this site. You are not going to take your readers--most of whom seem to be a cut above average in intelligence and perception-- anywhere with shoddy tactics like these, if that's your intention.

anyone wanna start a pool on how much Billary raised in Jan? donuts to dollars, I'd say well under $20 million. that spread will dwarf the 3 or 4 million spread of the last quarter of 2007. and that's why Hillary will hide her Jan number until the last minute, well after super tues

"she hopes to have it sewn up before it becomes abundantly apparent that Obama has much deeper support across a broader spectrum of Americans than she does."

If Obama truly has much deeper support, how could she have it "sewn up"? What a strange arguement.

I would love to read the fine print, but the fine print is unrevealed. How much of Clinton's 27 million can be used for the Primaries and how much can only be used in the General Election?

As for the guest who stated that the Hillary commenters are the worst in general - I have to whole heartedly disagree. I don't read or see many vile comments about Obama because any comments that have been made in general have been turned into racist ones when they weren't. It is the Obama supporters who just can't seem to fathom that others may not just see him as the second coming as they do. Personally I find it hard to get over excited about the most important job in the land going to someone with not much experience period. He ran one election to get into the Illinois senate and his race into the US senate he could have stayed home and won. Even the worst candidate could have won since his opponent was Alan Keyes and the republicans had to import him from out of state to even have a candidate. Then in short shrift within a year or so in the US Senate, he has decided he wants to be President. I don't know if there is something missing here other than his record but I don't feel I want to trust him with the worst mess this US will ever face after Bush and Cheney leave office. He may have a dream all right but that is the same rehash of the one promised 8 years ago. I am not falling for it twice.