One thing to note about the Obama "tote board" is that they stopped updates sometime late AM EST (note the "Thank you". So it's very likely to be well past the number cited.

A question I have: are these funds directed to paying back the $5 million loan, with some left over for ads, or are these funds to put her fully back in play, along with the 5 million to be paid back later? I've heard rumblings in both directions, and some clarification would be of use.

Primary funds are the only ones that count. Not primary plus general funds. Ask Clinton how much of that was for the primary. Ask Obama the same question. Don't be surprised if there is a big difference here.

What's more striking is you are comparing her 7 day haul with his 1 day haul. That's striking.

If for some reason we're treating this like a horserace, were any numbers released in terms of whether Clinton or Obama is ahead in terms of number of donors post Feb 5?

That Obama $7.6 million plus the MoveOn money announced today really amounts to $8 million total.

I'm doubtful about this, but I guess I have to take it at face value, since I take Obama's take at face value as well.

I just donated another $100 to Obama. Clearly, the original Hillary story was done on purpose. One, to create this mood that she was an underdog. Two, to send word out to her supporters that she needs money. Look, this is the former First Lady and Bill Clinton, of course they can raise cash quickly...they are the establishment!

Hardly striking that they'd move to "take control" of the fundraising story. it would have been deadly.

So now, they say the loan was just a little fundraising tactic, (or "a trick," as some might call it), to scare her donors into thinking she was running out of cash. So, la de da, turns out, she didn't really need the loan it at all, (although she hasn't paid it back).

Oh yeah, and ABC now says that although they told their people they'd have to go without pay this month, they never followed through on it, so I guess that was just another "fundraising tactic" to scare those stingy ol' donors into to breaking open those piggy banks, too.

Help me out her. If it was all just a "fundraising tactic," doesn't that mean they deliberately leaked the info about the loan to Halpirin and then played him like a marionette to manipulate their donor base. Which, in turn, means everyone should pull back their praise of Halpirin for "breaking" this important story, right.

Unless, of course, they were telling the truth about their finances back when they leaked to Halpirin and are lying now because the story's so scary. Or, they were lying then and they're lying now, always another possibilty when you're living at Camp Sayanythingdoanything.

Apparently the whole being outraised thing hurt their pride a bit.

Hey Greg,

Did they happen to mention a number of donors, by chance? Are these more big money fishes, or did Clinton just "give" her campaign some cash (instead of a "loan")?

I wonder how much of that $6.4 million was donated by Hillary.

Why does Hillary's fundraising claim not ring true to me?

$32m vs. $13.5m + $5m persoal "loan" in January and you're saying the gap has narrowed considerably? What kind of fuzzy math is that?

...

Hey clearthinker
"I wish they would practice what they preach."

Why don't u practice what ur name suggests, rthaer than posting ur SPINS and FARTS on the blog.
Use the toilet next time.
This what happens when technology available to undeserving idiots.

Reading Taylor Marsh is hilarious. She says "apparently most of Hillary's donors didn't know she needed money, they figured she was all set" and in comments some dimbulb virtually drags and drops the same comment, "I didn't know Hillary needed money, I figured she was all set".

Hillary's running an incompetent top down traditional campaign that has wasted big dollars on consultants like Penn the union buster and has to rely on tricking her donor base to cough up more cash.

Not a bad haul, especially considering the lack of advertising this effort got in comparison to Obama's highly publicized effort. If she had made the same push, it is pretty clear she would have passed Obama's total.

If we're going to talk about how many people are donating to each camp and how much they're donating, we should also discuss the most interesting and least reported-on statistic of Super Tuesday. Obama won overwhelmingly among voters making more than $50,000/year while Hillary won overwhelmingly among voters making less than $50,000. It can resonably inferred then that Obama's supporters are much more likely to be able to afford a donation than Hillary's.

I really don't understand why this statistic hasn't been discussed more (oh, wait, I forgot that Obama is the media's golden boy and Hillary their favorite target). Obama is the hoity-toi intellectual's candidate. I imagine most of his supporters don't have to worry about health care coverage since they get it at their cushy jobs or as part of their college bill.

I just got an email from Obama's campaign saying that they have had over 300,000 different donors since the new year. That's how he raises that much money. He has a huge donor base that chips in, and chips in repeatedly. Many of his supporters are college students - not exactly the wealthiest demographic - that give $10 or $15. Hillary is the one who has received half of her $$ from people who maxed out and gave the full 2,300. That is not working class or white collar middle class.

I would much rather have people who make $50,000 or a bit more as the source of my money than the lobbyists who have provided so much of the Clinton cash.

Well, it's not hard to "take control" of a story when you've got folks like Greg who apparently think that a candidate who raises $6 million since Super Tuesday is bigger news than one who raises close to $8 million over the same period.

What a remarkable comeback she's made! Now she can afford to pay all those staffers who have been getting paid all along, anyway. And now she can pay back the $5 million loan that apparently she didn't need, after all.

And, oh, yeah, by the way, if Obama doesn't win every single delegate in the next nine primaries, he's had a disappointing performance. Just remember, when you see that headline on this site next week, that you heard it here first.

Almey May,

Not quite sure where you get this strange idea that Obama's supporters are all "liberal elitists". And student's simply liking Obama as a fad (like Britney..). Now, I'm all for debating the pros and cons of the candidates but that's just plain silly and insulting. Some Obama commenters say silly things some times as do Clinton supporters - this was one of the sillier ones.

And then you get to one of the things that really, really, irritates people. The idea that Clinton was co-President back in the 90s.

"Of course, the black people also suport Obama. They think it is their turn. To heck on what the Clintons have done for the community".

Did I miss something? I thought Bill had been the President. I thought he did a lot for African Americans. She was the First Lady, which, last time I looked was not a political position. It's clear you like Hillary and she did a lot of good things but she wasn't responsible for her husband's policies. He was. He was the President. Not her. The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1947 to limit Presidents to two terms. If it was "the Clintons who were in power back in the 90s then maybe Hillary is barred from running again."

This is the first time the wife of a former President has run for President so the ground rules haven't really been established. Let me suggest Rule 1 - spouses can't claim the legacy of their spouse's successes...

i think you guys need to take it easy. i understand why.
this will be remembered as one the greatest election game ever.
this junior senator of chicago challenges the CLINTONs and the game gets bloody everyday. you can't make this stuff up.
from where i sit, there is nothing much can do, so I've learned to rather enjoy the game.

About this 'we're broke, help!' news and then the, ahem, corrections about the state of finances in the Hillary campaign:

Some of us realize that she played her supporters for fools by playing on their sympathy to get their money. That is really despicable when you think of how that strategy preys on her elderly supporters. But, this is also the Hillary campaign that recently 'rented' its supporter list to a company that used another such list to actually try to defraud the elderly. I don't suppose the story of her 'renting' her supporter list will reach her base of older folks, either.

But the Hillary camp also played the media for fools. In the words of one supporter, "HRC royaly [sic.... this is a comment copied from a thread at TaylorMarsh] played the media and they seem to stupid to have noticed. So who cares?" Nice integrity there, Hillary supporter.

Do these folks expect the rest of us to disregard the issue of honor? I think not.

Brenathome - It's everywhere. I'm still undecided myself. I like Obama the man; it's his campaign that reminds me a lot of Bush's in 2000, only it seems like a bunch of college kids run his PR Dep. Snarky press releases like 'Obama-0, Clinton-0" for Florida may come back to haunt them. And though one may disagree with Hillary (I do, particularly on Iraq), Obama's supporters make an extra effort to push away the reader with the vitriol and hatred they seethe for her... then putting "Yes we can!" or "Obama '08 for Change" or whatever tagline they came up with for this week. IF you are an Obama supporter, don't sling poo and preach change; you do your candidate a great disservice. The same goes for Hillary's foot soldiers.

It's beyond me why we can't understand that this election is ours to lose, if we try hard enough.

Read Goodbye to all that by Robin Morgan at http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

I agree with Chelsea Clinton' comment of: "I don't agree with all the points Robin Morgan makes but I do believe her thesis is important for us all to confront--I confess that I didn't entirely get 'it' until not only guys stood up and shouted 'iron my shirts' but the media reacted with amusement, not outrage..."

Nonetheless Robin has articulated what I have felt about the gender bias against Hillary among the male oriented media and the race bias for Obama. The supporters of Obama are mainly people who earn more than $75000 a year and the white bourgeoisie who comfort themselves that at long last they can make restitution for the sins and guilt of their forefathers who subjected the black people to slavery and social inequality. I think this is what the gentleman constituent from Iowa asked of John Edwards whether if it’s “pay back time”. This episode in Iowa was swept under the carpet by the media. Similarly the media took no issue to Obama’s snide response to Hillary’s likability factor in the New Hampshire debate.

I am proud of Hillary because she is a person of substance, endurance, fortitude and passion. She not only weathered the storm after Iowa but was able to stand tall after the vicious media relentlessly brutalized, kicked, battered and abused her when she was down. And I think the media and Clinton haters are incensed by her audacity of resilience. Yes Hillary carries the famous Clinton name but if she was not smart, capable and qualified to be a president, I wouldn’t stand by her. I am a woman and in my life so far I find sexual discrimination at work and in social circle but the disturbing truth is that some women can be more brutal and vicious against their own gender than men.

Support Hillary and donate to her campaign at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/