Wow!
Again, Seriously!
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Barack Obama just got a lot more credible (read on):
ABC News has learned that the $23.5 million Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised for his presidential campaign for use in the primaries is more than that raised by the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Of the $26 million Clinton has raised in the first quarter of 2007 for her presidential campaign, approximately $20 million is to be used in the primaries and caucuses, sources told ABC News.
Clinton campaign officials cautioned that its campaign was still ascertaining how much of its $26 million raised is available for primary use.
Sources told ABC News that while that is accurate, roughly $20 million is designated for the primary -- it could be slightly less or slightly more. Either way, Obama raised more primary cash than Clinton.
Other than the history it would make via the election of the first female President of the United States, there is no overarching theme to Hillary Clinton's campaign. If she were a man, or if all other candidates were women, the casual voter could discern no special or unique reason why Hillary Clinton should be elected President of the United States instead of her opponents.
Barack Obama's election would make history too, of course. But there is more of a theme to his campaign. He is much more consistently and clearly against the reconstruction effort in Iraq than is Hillary Clinton. He has a more unique political vocabulary that makes up his stump speeches and sets them apart from his competitors; playing off of the "Audacity of Hope" theme that makes up the title of his second memoirs, Obama has laid claim to the RFK mantle in this race. Agree with his political positions or disagree with them, there is a more discernible rationale for Obama's candidacy than their is for Clinton's.
And now he has the cash to spread that rationale around.
I used to think that Hillary Clinton would bulldoze her way towards the nomination by sheer force of the Establishment behind her; the very Establishment that supported her husband. I still do, to be perfectly honest. But Barack Obama may very well be in a position to bloody her along the road to the crown.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Nancy Pelosi Brings Peace to the Middle East — Comments (30) »
Wow! 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think it was someone else in the family.
Clinton actually raised more money, but she earmarked less of her money for the primaries. That's probably because she expects to win the primaries, which I am sure she will.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Does this primary vs GE split only matter if the candidates take federal funding? With wads of cash these guys (and gal) are pulling down, aren't they going to blow that off it means any sort of restrictions?
If I write you a check for $4000, you campaign can still only use $2000 of it for the primary, as I understand it.
Run like Reagan!
So much as not being allowed to use the money in the primary due to donor limitations.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
is sufficiently bruised and battered heading into the general election.
I only hope that we can have an election without a Bush or Clinton on the ticket. I've had quite enough of both, thank you.
As much as I like Jeb Bush, I don't ever want to see him run for President. Running for white house shouldn't become a family business.
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
Nay.
I don't care who their family is or what they have done. I only care about the candidate.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
It's extremely unlikely that Hillary's campaign raised less *primary* money because they chose to allocate some of it to the general election. No campaign manager/finance director in their right mind would make such a decision (speaking as a past campaign manager and finance director, among other things).
The money Hillary allocated to the general was done so entirely because those donors had "maxed out" to the primary already, and money above the primary limit was allocated as a matter of routine to the general.
Money left over after the primary battle can be transferred to the general campaign, or given to other committees (say, the DNC). If, as suggested, money was allocated to the general as a matter of discretion, the only impact that would have would be to limit the available funds Hillary has for what looks like it could be a tough battle for the nomination. It would be insane to do this.
So, it looks like Obama beat Hillary fair and square for the primary fundraising race, but it also looks like more people may be betting on Hillary to make it to the general (otherwise, why give to the primary and general?).
She has mega-illions amassed from the past. Can she spend that money on this Presidential election at any time in any manner she chooses, or is that supposed to be limited? If she is limited and so donates it to the DNC and they spend it on her instead, is that any different from what Tom DeLay got in trouble for (other than its being at 100x the scale)?
She can empty the senate account and put it all into her presidential race. A lot of people were a little annoyed with the fact that she spent so much of her funds on the NY Senate race in '06 because they'd assumed she would try to conserve as much cash as possible in order to transfer it to the presidential race.
The difference between DeLay and Hillary, under the scenario you outline, is that Hillary's money is all "hard" money, so giving it to the DNC and allowing them to spend it on her doesn't involve swapping "hard" for "soft" money. DeLay was essentially swapping soft-money for hard money, although as it related to state regulations and not having anything to do with the federal definitions of hard and soft. It was completely legal, too, what DeLay did. But the two really aren't comparable.
...it's also only marginally more than what Romney raised, and most people here seem to not give him any semblance of a chance. Money isn't always everything.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."