The Money Race

-

The Clinton campaign has now announced that it has raised a staggering $7.5 million since Super Tuesday. Add this to the announcement from the Obama campaign that it has raised $7.2 million since Tuesday as well.
The Republicans must be freaking out. These are huge dollars.
Obama still has bragging rights that his team pulled in $32 million in January compared to Hillary Clinton’s $14 million — leaving Obama with a net lead for 2008 fundraising $17.7 million.
With all due respect, what was Terry McAuliffe doing in January?
— Steve Clemons

Comments

14 comments on “The Money Race

  1. Joe Klein's conscience says:

    John:
    Funny thing is, I know a few people that are normally registered Repubs(I live in a state that hasn’t had a primary yet) that are talking about switching registration for the primary to vote for Obama(to defeat Hillary in the primary). Go figure!!

    Reply

  2. JohnH says:

    Now Hillary’s making a solo appearance on Fox.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/05/clinton-accepts-fox-news-_n_85111.html
    Should provide a good opportunity to raise funds from the wingnuts.

    Reply

  3. anatol says:

    Susan,
    of course we don’t know what has been bombed in Syria, and we’re all free to speculate at will, or, in Obama’s case, show off his speech against the Iraq war. Still, _both_ candidates clearly avoided the issue, and talked platitudes to turn the question to their advantage.
    As for what was actually bombed, a telling sign to me is that Syrians didn’t protest too much, and other Arab countries have been obviously displeased with Syria, and kept VERY quiet on this matter, unlike on any other Israeli action. There certainly has been some there there, nuclear or not. I’ve read somewhere a speculation that Israelis bombed a site of an advanced and supposedly unpenetrable by Israel Russian anti-aircraft complex recently supplied to both Syria and Iran, in order to prevent some irreversible erroneous moves by both of their mortal enemies. Whatever. Your guess is as good as mine, or for that matter HRC’s or Obama’s. In your quotes Obama’s allusion to his speech 6 years ago doesn’t elucidate his current strategic vision any better that HRC’s platitudes. But once again, Obama helps his supporters to project on him their noble sentiments – very smart campaigning.

    Reply

  4. susan says:

    Remembering Clinton And Obama On Syria Bombing
    at the September 27 MSNBC debate. Here’s Clinton:
    CLINTON: [W]e don’t have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that…there was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with supplies. There was intelligence and other kinds of verification.
    And here’s Obama:
    OBAMA: Now, we don’t know exactly what happened with respect to Syria. We’ve gotten general reports, but we don’t know all the specifics. We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence…
    and this today…
    Hersh: Israel pressed me to agree Syrian site was nuclear
    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/
    A new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh offers a detailed examination of the claims that Israel bombed a nuclear facility under construction in Syria last September and finds that none of the evidence stands up to scrutiny.
    According to Hersh, “A former senior U.S. intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, said, ‘We don’t have any proof of a reactor — no signals intelligence, no human intelligence, no satellite intelligence.'” However, Hersh found that the Israelis were continuing to stand adamantly by their claims:
    “When I went to Israel in late December, the government was still maintaining secrecy about the raid, but some current and former officials and military officers were willing to speak without attribution. Most were adamant that Israel’s intelligence had been accurate. ‘Don’t you write that there was nothing there!’ a senior Israeli official, who is in a position to know the details of the raid on Syria, said, shaking a finger at me. ‘The thing in Syria was real.'”
    Just one Israeli official expressed doubts, but also brushed them away:
    “Retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom, who served as deputy national-security adviser under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, told me that Israel wouldn’t have acted if it hadn’t been convinced that there was a threat. ‘It may have been a perception of a conviction, but there was something there,’ Brom said. ‘It was the beginning of a nuclear project.’ However, by the date of our talk, Brom told me, ‘The question of whether it was there or not is not that relevant anymore.'”
    One Syrian official suggested to Hersh that the Israelis may have picked up the presence of North Korean laborers at the site and drawn their own conclusions. “‘The Israelis may have their own spies and watched the laborers being driven to the area,’ the senior officer said. ‘The Koreans were not there at night, but slept in their quarters and were driven to the site in the morning. The building was in an isolated area, and the Israelis may have concluded that even if there was a slight chance’ — of it being a nuclear facility — ‘we’ll take that risk.'”

    Reply

  5. susan says:

    Good post from http://badattitudes.com/MT/
    This piece by Spencer Ackerman in The Washington Independent is the best analysis I’ve seen anywhere of the tangled web Hillary wove for herself by supporting Bush’s war. Its conclusion:
    And there’s a final significance to Clinton’s turn against the war. In November, the Democratic nominee will probably face a Republican who believed deeply in the war, but who also repeatedly criticized the war’s execution—Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). McCain, a war hero, has national-security bona fides that few candidates possess. He will be able to inhabit the space Clinton has carved out for herself over the past two years: sober critic and skeptic of Bush. However, he’ll also be able to pounce on her inconsistency and vacillation, if Thursday’s debate is any indication, in a replay of the “flip-flopper” charge that doomed Kerry four years ago. Unlike Obama, Clinton will have no way of pivoting to a broader indictment of the militarism that McCain cheerfully espouses. It may be that, nearly six years after Clinton thought she had positioned herself to avoid all the pitfalls of the war, her calculation itself was what ultimately sealed the fate of her candidacy.

    Reply

  6. anatol says:

    Susan,
    So Obama is better than Clinton on ME because he mentioned the Palestinians? That’s a thin straw to hold on to – remember how Clinton has been proclaimed a raving anti-semite because she kissed Arafat’s wife?
    Unfortunately nobody is putting hard foreign policy questions to any candidate, and the campaign is about selling their brand – Obama excells at that, and it’s in his interest to avoid debates and press conferences. That way everyone will project on him their hopes and convictions.
    Steve pointed out repeatedly that we’d like to hear from ALL of them, what’s their strategic vision for ME and US role there. What DO we do with nuclear Iran? I don’t see much difference between Obama and HRC on this – except of course the hope that we can.
    My point about imminent McCain’s victory in case of Obama’s nomination still stands – the mass psychosis which might help him to get 50.1% of the Dem convention delegates will fall far short of getting him 270 electoral votes.

    Reply

  7. JohnH says:

    Murder–I’m willing to settle for Obama geting independents, including independents that would have voted for McCain in Texas and Ohio, in exchange for Clinton getting Republiscum re-registrats in Ohio. After all, it takes effort to re-register, though writing a check for their preferred Dem opponent (Clinton) does not.

    Reply

  8. susan says:

    Anatol, You may be right, but I am staying with Obama. Given the level of disgust for the war in Iraq, I don’t think the American people will rush to the polls to vote for an old neocon or for a woman who voted for a resolution to take us to war and strongly implies that she might broaden the fiasco that we are currently mired in.
    Oh, and as far as the Kenyan grandma is concerned, I saw her on TV and she looked just like any other proud grandmother to me. Grandmas the world over are easy to relate to.
    Here is a glimpse into what each of the candidate’s Middle East policies might look like:
    Offering more “straight talk” on the Sunday before the Florida primary, John McCain made an arresting prediction: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”
    Ike promised to “go to Korea” and ended that war. Nixon pledged to end Vietnam with honor. McCain says we may be in Iraq a hundred years and warns, “there’s going to be other wars.” Take the man at his word.
    Mimicking the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann,” McCain has joked about “Bomb, bomb, bomb—bomb, bomb Iran” and urged the expulsion of Russia from the G-8. He wants to expand NATO to bring in Georgia and the Ukraine. This could mean confrontation between Russia and the United States over whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia should be free of Georgia or ruled by Tbilisi, a matter of zero vital interest to this country.
    We are forewarned. John McCain intends to be a war president.
    During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, “I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel …”
    As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel’s violence, as well as AIPAC’s duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call ‘buffer zones’).
    Hillary Clinton’s silence toward Israel’s brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC’s mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC’s right — even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary Clinton.
    Barack Obama did the unthinkable recently: he had the audacity to mention the Palestinians.
    “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” Obama told voters in Iowa on Sunday. That remark hardly endeared him to the hawkish pro-Israel supporters at AIPAC, where Obama (and Hillary) spoke on Monday.
    According to the New York Times, Obama and Hillary held dueling receptions to woo Jewish voters. Hillary offered the standard pro-Israel line, even displaying a sign spelling her name in Hebrew.
    In the past, Obama has spoken highly of the Palestinian people and the calamities they’ve faced. No doubt, his opponents will now try and use that against him. National Review’s blog has already posted a picture of him with (gasp) Edward Said.

    Reply

  9. anatol says:

    Susan,
    Sure, Rove, Kristol, Morris, Rush all say that Republicans would just love running against Hillary, and fear running against Obama. We all should listen to those beacons of truth and good judgment, and believe the purity of their motives, right?
    Please wake up. If the Obama cult will not crumble in a month and will carry him to the nomination, it will be crushed by McCain by repeating over and over one simple question: Who do you want in the White House in case of a 9/11 – like crisis – me or the guy with no armed services experience whatsoever, and with foreign relations experience which consists of living in Indonesia as a child, and visiting his Grandma in Kenya. Answer: 40 states landslide.

    Reply

  10. Mr.Murder says:

    They switched voter registration in Georgia to defeat Max Clelland and Cynthia McKinney. Now that McCain has the Republican nomination, why not use their wealth to cause trouble for Dems?
    -Posted by JohnH
    The state Obama won? good point you make. In fact, outside of Illinois, Obama pulled every state Romney won outside of Mass. which would seem to indicate the GOP front runner was switching votes somewhere else, as McCain’s numbers dropped below margin of his usual percentage in several of those states Obama won. Two Obama states of which had staggered contests(no R contests on the same day), two others were Democrat caucuses only.
    He did that in West Virginia, which was a GOP ballot only, by giving all but 1% to Huckabee.
    I’m certain that Obama flipped Utah for the Democrats!
    Any more paper lions to scare me with?

    Reply

  11. JohnH says:

    How much of Hillary’s money is coming from Republiscum intent on seeing their favorite target secure the nomination?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/limbaugh-says-hell-fundr_n_85593.html
    They switched voter registration in Georgia to defeat Max Clelland and Cynthia McKinney. Now that McCain has the Republican nomination, why not use their wealth to cause trouble for Dems?

    Reply

  12. susan says:

    Steve says: The Clinton campaign has now announced that it has raised a staggering $7.5 million since Super Tuesday
    According to CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer:
    Democrat Barack Obama raised $7.2 million and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton collected $6.4 million since Super Tuesday…”

    Reply

  13. Greg P says:

    There is definitely some degree of strategic advantage in Obama’s tilt toward raising more dollars from small donors. A much higher percentage of Hillary’s funds came from large donors who have already given their $4,600 (both primary and general caps), and can’t give any more, though most of the could certainly afford to. Obama’s larger number of small donors can keep giving their $50 or $100 contributions as many times as they like, and clearly, many of them are doing so.

    Reply

  14. chris brandow says:

    slight correction. my understanding is that Clinton campaign raised 7.5 since Feb. 1. Barack’s number is since feb. 5. he should have an additional 2 mill since Feb. 1.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *