Obama Outspending Hillary, And Has More Cash On Hand
Some new fundraising statistics show that Barack Obama has beaten Hillary Clinton in both spending and cash on hand. During the month of February, Obama was spending at a rate of $1.5 million per day, compared to Hillary's $1 million per day — but Obama raised $55.4 million to Hillary's $34.5 million.
Meanwhile, Obama went into March with far more cash on hand for the primary. Of Hillary's cash going into March, only $11.3 million could be used for the primary, less than half of Obama's primary account. One caveat is that it's not yet known how the primary results this month have affected the money game.
Another observation from the Associated Press: "In a testament to the financial heft behind the Democrats, Obama and Clinton together spent more in a month than McCain has for the length of the year-long campaign."
Imagine if she had to actually face media scrutiny this month for all of her lies, deceptions, and fale accusations?
March 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's doing much better than Clinton at raising hard money.
And yet, she has big-pocket donors willing to give millions in soft money to organize votes in Florida and Michigan.
I find it very telling.
March 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if we could spend that cash on beating McCain, rather then beating up each other.
March 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>Obama Edges Clinton in Feb. Campaign Cash, Spending
He "edges" Clinton by $20 million? "Crushes" would seem more apt.
March 21, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This headline: Obama Edges Clinton in Feb. Campaign Cash, Spending
Another TPM headline: Reports of Clinton's Demise Have Been Greatly Underexaggerated
Looks like TMP is joining the MSM and jumping on the underaggeration bandwagon!
March 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headline on the TPM main page "Obama Edges Clinton in Feb. Campaign Cash, Spending". That's a pretty serious "Edge".
March 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You failed to mention that she also has a pretty sizable debt. I think I read that it was somewhere near 9 million in debt which leaves her at less than 3 million in cash on hand and I don't think she has paid herself back yet.
March 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Democrats ended up with more than $30 million in the bank, but Clinton can't use two-thirds of her cash on hand because it's only for the general election. That and her debt left her with less than $3 million in the black. The debt doesn't include the $5 million she lent her campaign in January.
March 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that Clinton actually did not raise 35 million in February. She really raised approximately 20 million.
She used 10 million from her Senate Campaign and 5 million from her own loan.
So really how did she come up with that 35 million figure? Another Clinton misstatement?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money21mar21,1,6702245.story
March 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a bit surprising. She is behind in fundraising because she's behind in delegates, behind in popular vote, and behind in most polls. Most of her primary mojo is the result of the constant media attention. She complains, she smears and it is reported by a n appreciated and compliant press.
But there isn't any real contest. No, she doesn't have the clout to cause superdelegates to vote for her. Her campaign is a trainwreck.
March 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only $19 million of real money. Where is that part of the whole truth?
March 21, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was mistaken. HRC raised $35 million vs Obama's $55 millionsStill, raising $20 millions more than Clinton is called "edging"?
March 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In a testament to the financial heft behind the Democrats, Obama and Clinton together spent more in a month than McCain has for the length of the year-long campaign."
This is the reason I'd like to see pressure exerted on the SDs regardless of who they support. Let's not waste resources on nipping at each other's ankles.
Lay the cards on the table so we can determine if there's a winner. Richardson just did so in going for Obama. Good for Richardson. I'm a Clinton supporter but applaud Richardson coming out for his candidate. We need resolution. Those that know who they're going to vote for should declare. Those that are wavering should say so and exactly what they're waiting to hear.
If it's just fear of some late breaking scandal on either, anybody can change their vote for that.
So let's f'ing do it and get on with the really important campaign in November. It needs to start now.
March 21, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone interested in fiscal responsibility can dismiss HRC's lousy campaign finance history. Failure to plan. Failure to anticipate. Failure to adjust. Failure on all levels. She is not POTUS material. Period.
March 21, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink