This is very inportant information. Now when the Obama website servers are overloaded from so many people making contributions (which they have been) I know I can just go to the MoveOn website to donate to his campaign.

Thanks for sharing!! :)

♪ Still more money! I love it! ♪

chris, that is a point worth remembering. the composition of obama's support, mostly small donors as opposed to HRC's far fewer, largely maxed-out supporters, tells you where the most enthusiastic popular support is.

Greg-

Any reasonable person never would have used the MoveOn connection as an explanation when Obama raised $8 million dollars after he lost NH, and MoveOn had yet to endorse him then.

It's clear that his online donors who tend to be small donors are buying into the engine that is his campaign. Hillary's donors (as has been stated before) are paying for a win, not a tie nor a loss. They comes when her numbers look good, never when it looks like she might fold.

Thanks for the update Greg. It'll be interesting to see what those numbers are combined this afternoon.

Predictions? Might Obama raise 12 million in 48 hours?

Speaking of money, the Chris Ward story is huge. Stand back when this bomb goes off. The Republicans just don't now how to handle money.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/

Team Clinton just wants to put "Obama" and "MoveOn" in the same sentence as often as possible.

Anon@11:54

I posted on Gallup yesterday (you can read it by clicking on my name) and Mark Blumnethal has promised a comprehensive post at pollster.com today. The essential point is that whatever Gallup is showing, it's not the probably outcome of the race.
That 13-point spread is from polling done before the polls closed Tuesday, and on the two previous days. In other words, Gallup announced to the world that likely voters favored Hillary by 13 points at the same time 14 million actual voters went to the polls and split their votes right down the middle. So no, the poll isn't big news. It's just a little embarassing for Gallup.

Hallelujah! My comment posted. Always grateful for minor miracles.

FOTW- Good points.

Has anyone seen anything on Ohio or Texas? Like demographic breakdown of the democratic electorate? I'm hearing hints out there that the hispanic vote will not be so solidly pro-Clinton, partly because alot of the hispanic population of Texas is 4th or 5th generation....

Any thoughts?

Hill wouldn't be "up against move on" had she not lost the move on primary by such a staggering margin.

Hillary, as usual lately, is on a slippery slope.

Her argument that the fundraising my MoveOn for Obama is unfair is laughable, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that the organization was founded in many respects for her and her husband.

She is being outpaced in fundraising for many reasons. MoveOn's support is not a bad thing and she would have jumped at the chance to have it.

If she want's, maybe we should explore why a LARGE percentage of her donors are maxed out for the contribution limit? It's ironic that she recieved a large portion of "working class" Democrats votes while she has fundraising issues because her donors gave $2,300 a shot. Working class people can't do that. My question is, who is the one who represents the working class?

I think Hillary in this case is the one who needs to MoveOn.

Moishele,

Yes, I'm sure some people who are MoveOn folks donated to Obama's campaign. The reason for this is because some MoveOn folks are Obama supporters hence the endorsement by MoveOn. Those supporters would have donated to Obama whether or not MoveOn endorsed him.

I am also sure that their are some MoveOn members who have donated to Hillary's campaign.

Jeez! How about a little common sense.

Hope this doesn't double-post. Last time I tried, it went to the comment roach motel.

Ben Smith cites Taylor Marsh as saying Hill and Bill's loan terms provided it was to be paid back within 48 hours of SuperDuper Tuesday.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/On_the_money.html

Lots of implications.

1. The 4 million raised since Tuesday doesn't give them anything like parity with Obama's post Tuesday spending. Obama's new money is in the bank waiting to be spent. Hillary's new money is back in Hill's pocket and they still owe her the next million as well. In terms of the campaitns' bottom lines, the comparison isn't 3 or 4 million to 7 or 8 million. Its -1 or -2 million to 7 or 8 million.

2. This prompt payback is not the mark of a campaign that is highly confident in getting the win. Usually, a self funder lets the loan ride until after the election and counts on the power of the office to attract doners to retire the debt. Phrased another way, Hillary felt like getting paid back was a higher priority than leaving the money in the campaign.

3. I wonder if the doners realized they were paying back the loan rather than paying for more campaign leverage. Some doubtless would have given more, if they'd known, but I expect others will feel kind of ripped, especially given that Hill's staff is going with out pay this month.

4. Speaking of which, that's gotta be a big morale booster at Camp Clinton. No paycheck for you this month, but the boss and the othe boss get their money back out, skimmed right off the top of the first cash raised from your hard work. (Though Mark Penn certainly has the 4.7 million he's drained off the campaign thus far for his brilliant work to tide him over the hard feelings.)

Moishele, yep. Do you seriously expect us to believe that alot of the clintons' campaign contributions did not come from lobbyists, people trying to buy favors (like the dictator of kazakstan) and the dem establishment?

JTin - Pennsylvania is a Big 10 state too, ya know. That would be a nail in Hillary's coffin.

As a loyal Big 10 supporter, I'm thinking we need to work this angle. ;)

Great analysis.

I agree that once word gets out about the loan and payback terms, some potential Clinton donors are not going to want to donate just repay the loan to the campaign.

I loved Hillary's response when asked about the loan: "It's my money." In other words, none of your damn business how I got $5 million to loan my campaign. Maybe it was Bill's friends in the Kazakh oil industry, but I'm not going to tell you. More of Hillary's penchant for a lack of transparency that goes all the way back to the failure of Hillarycare.

"This appears to put a crimp in the Hillary campaign's argument -- in terms of this $7 million, at least -- that their lag in fundraising is partly due to the fact that they're not just up against the Obama camp, but MoveOn as well."

What Greg is glossing over (which he does quite often) is the fact that the Hillary camp has no problem posting incorrect information as if it were fact. Of course once the meme is corrected, the incorrect info is out on the blogosphere for the Hillary Supporters to latch on to.

At TPM, the mission for years is to cut through the spin. Separate fact from fiction. While I am heartened to see Greg doing some actual fact based reporting for a change, his neglect in pointing out the motive for the false assertion before they had the facts does a disservice to those of us who are really trying to sort fact from fiction.

On the loan, what type of interest rate did she ask for? And if the $5MM has to be repaid by today, is she effectively BROKE at this point?

I am not sure if any of you read this article posted on feb 4, 2008 on Bloomber.com: Politics titled "Clinton Gets Most Lobbyist Money, McCain Most Help". This article points out what most of us already know, but it goes to show that Billary is getting money from lobbyists.

Simply it states this "Democrat Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate" ... "Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007".

They will do anything to win. You can read this at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPnPwl7XNJik&refer=home

I'd like to know more about the terms of this loan.

* will she be transparent about the loan? (is there muck to be raked?)
* what happens if she doesn't pay it off today?
* will she pay it back to herself out of her general election or senatorial coffers? (is that legal?)
* can we get a real source for her fundraising totals?

Do your thing, TPM. We'll wait...

even though I had my eyes on Obama since 2004, would never have thought he could come this far. it looks like more she's trying more she's loosing the ground. now I really start to think that if she is not able to kick a junior senator's butt from the city of Chicago, how can she insist on kicking the United Against Clintons of the republican party? how is she going to turn this movement for "change+hope" to her and unite the democratic party? anyone has any good idea for Hillary?...

this headline and content are both demonstrately stupid and show the bias of this site. Clinton campaign never said Moveon.org raised money for Obama. They only claimed Obama has access to the email list of Moveon.org, like that of Kerry's. How can Moveon.org raise money for Clinton if it is not a hired fundraiser for Obama. Moveon may have its own independent expenditure but how can it raise money directly for Obama? Use your brain, would you please?

This just in - that big pool of money flowing to Obama from MoveOn - 320K...

so big pool turns out to be wading pool.

Oh well.

Let's step back for a minute and look at the playing field:

a) HRC says no Fox News and then backtracks

b) HRC says no MI and FL delegate and then backtracks

c) HRC says no personal financing and then backtracks

d) HRC agrees to debate schedules and then wants to rewrite them

Is this the sort of responsible, consistent, stable leadership we want in the White House representing the Democratic Party?