Clinton Beats Obama in Third-Quarter Fundraising
ABC News’ Kate Snow Reports: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has beat her closest ’08 Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in fundraising for the third quarter — bringing in $27 million to Obama’s $19 million between July and mid-September.
The Clinton campaign confirmed they have picked up 100,000 new donors.
That’s more than the $20 million raised by Obama in the same period and more than the 93,000 new donors Obama claims.
Of Obama’s third quarter total, $19 million is money that can be spent on the primary election. Of Clinton’s total, her campaign has confirmed that $22 million is money for the primary election and $5 million is general election contributions.
Obama has still outraised Clinton in terms of money he can spend on the primary, raising $74.9 million to Clinton’s $62.6 million for the primary.
However with a $27 million third-quarter fundraising haul, Clinton has cemented herself as a formidable Democratic front-runner for the 2008 nomination.
The Clinton camp was busily lowering expectations for their fundraising totals last week, telling reporters they expected to announce numbers in the ballpark of $17 million to $20 million.
In the past, when Obama has out-raised Clinton, Clinton campaign officials had argued that fundraising wasn’t everything. But today, Clinton insiders say they are very pleased. They say this suggests support for Obama is losing steam "big time," as one Clinton aide put it.
Email
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Waste of money.
She doesn’t have a chance.
.
Posted by: havoc888 | October 2, 2007, 9:48 am 9:48 am
I know soon there will comments about how dreadful this is that she is raising so much money and that it is to be expected from a Clinton. Let’s not allow the ‘other’ side to forget GW’s $250 Million raised for his campaign first time out and just as must for the second. If anything, Dems could learn a thing or two about raising crazy, uncensored, Enron-type cash from The Moralists. It is just a matter of time before they jump on board and decry how this is sneekiness personified. Don’t mind them – - REMIND them. :)
Posted by: Dave | October 2, 2007, 9:49 am 9:49 am
The third paragraph says that Obama raised $20 million in the third quarter, yet everywhere else the figure is $19 million. Whoever wrote this article needs to pay closer attention to what they are doing. Yes, I know that if you inadvertantly shift your hands one key to the right 19 becomes 20, but that’s no excuse. Ypu should READ what you write before sending it out for publication. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If ABC needs an editor for their web site they should drop me a line.
Posted by: Bob | October 2, 2007, 9:50 am 9:50 am
Great news for Hillary!!!
Posted by: Audrey Carr | October 2, 2007, 9:50 am 9:50 am
WHY does MONEY seem to make more of a difference in this country’s politics than PHILOSOPHY?
Posted by: RW | October 2, 2007, 9:54 am 9:54 am
Hillary is going to be a great Prez!
Posted by: Jaime | October 2, 2007, 9:56 am 9:56 am
Upon further analysis, I should have said that the third paragraph is simply redundant – except for the figure on the number of donors.
I think what we’re seeing here could be a shift in who the money is going to. I think Barak Obama is a very sharp guy who could one day be our first black president. He doesn’t have the experience and background for the job yet. My opinion is that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be an unbeatable combination, and the experience Obama would gain fromm the VP seat would position him perfectly for the top spot after our second President Clinton has completed her two terms.
Posted by: Bob | October 2, 2007, 9:59 am 9:59 am
No body can bit you Hill; you have strongest support from all the women who wants to see change and all the men who wants to see how America look like under strong, smart and intelligent rule.
Big Victory for Hill!
Posted by: Usha | October 2, 2007, 10:01 am 10:01 am
I echo Bob’s comment, but I’m more of a cynic, thinking that this reporter wanted to slant this story pro-Hillary by using incompatible numbers in the lead graf.
Posted by: Nate | October 2, 2007, 10:03 am 10:03 am
Does ABC stand for “All Backing Clinton”? I have yet to see a negative story about Hillary, but have seen plenty of stories against her adversaries, including a very misleading “investigative” report on Sen. Obama and special interests.
Posted by: JP | October 2, 2007, 10:08 am 10:08 am
The numbers in the 4th Q will be even more lopsided.
People don’t think Obama can win. His big money is going to dry up.
Meantime Obama’s big check writers will be scrambling to get in Clinton’s good graces. They will start sending checks her way.
As the old baseball saying goes, stick a fork in Obama, he is done.
Posted by: Dickie Flatts | October 2, 2007, 10:09 am 10:09 am
I’m so happy that the next President of the usa WILL be HILLARY CLINTON!!! YAY!! Prosperity and wealth for all!!!
Posted by: nathan smith | October 2, 2007, 10:11 am 10:11 am
Goooooo……..Hillary! It will be refreshing to have a president who can speak english again!
Posted by: Becky | October 2, 2007, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Fundamentally, I believe that our great democratic experiment is doomed, when the winner of a race is determined by their purchase price. As long as our leaders are bought and there is no transparency to the pork and earmarks against our tax dollars which are used to pay them back we will see our country continue to erode. Our tax dollars should be invested in our future, educating our next generation, eliminating poverty, and finding clean renewable energy.
Posted by: BooMan | October 2, 2007, 10:37 am 10:37 am
I am surprised of people coming out with results without the actual outcome. For you all Hillary fans and supporters, you will be shock when the day comes when real voters come out to vote Obama for PRESIDENT. have you forgotten that she brought money from her senetrial campaign..watch out for the biggest surprise of our life time..I wish you luck Hillary supporters.
Posted by: checago Bright | October 2, 2007, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Giving money to Mrs. Billy Clinton is where two fools make a socialist deal. The press is celebrating their power to manipulate these fools’little minds. Hillary offers no hope for this nation. Ron Paul is the only sane choice for president.
Posted by: David Allen | October 2, 2007, 10:51 am 10:51 am
If it comes down to it, I’ll vote for her but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think she can win the general election. It’s certainly not because she’s a woman, it’s because she’s Hillary Clinton. Who in the middle of the country (idiologically and geographically) is going to vote for her? This campaiign started too early and there is too much “dead air” on cable news channels that we spend time on who is raising money.
Posted by: TSnow27604 | October 2, 2007, 10:54 am 10:54 am
It is great to see these Dems and Liberals (and foreign governments) waste their money by giving it to Hillary Rodham and Barack Hussein; then they turn around and say the American people are in economic hardships because of the Bush Tax cuts,as they rake in record contributions. Please continue to throw your money away you Dems and Libs….how much was thrown at Gore and Kerry, what did they get? Ha Ha Ha Ha ……
Posted by: Ray | October 2, 2007, 10:57 am 10:57 am
Total waste of money, you are right, she has zero shot!
Posted by: John | October 2, 2007, 11:04 am 11:04 am
The media has already elected Sen. Clinton. She is going to be our next president, whether you or I like it or not, simply because the media has already elected her. TV, radio, print – it’s all the same. We might as well just get used to the thought of having her in office. Sends chills up my spine.
Posted by: genlin | October 2, 2007, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Keep Talking Republicans! You don’t HAVE a Candidate! Maybe the middle of the country will vote for Sanjaya!_____________________go Hillary!_________________________ GO Hillary!
Posted by: DemsRuleAmerica | October 2, 2007, 11:14 am 11:14 am
YOUR HEADLINE IS COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EITHER ITS OBAMA 22 CLINTON 27
OR CLINTON 22 OBAMA 19
Posted by: Betty | October 2, 2007, 11:18 am 11:18 am
All about the money. Anybody can be president, but they need millions and millions of dollars just to run in contention. ………. White Water Hillary is now so nervous about Obama and others that she will now buy your vote for, let’s say, $ 5,000 each? … Why is this not the top political headline for ABC? … $ 5,000 “baby bonds” if Hillary is elected? … Will Obama counter with $ 6,000; 7,000; $ 10,000? .. Spend it baby spend it. … If this is not manipulative vote buying, what is? … Where is your “unbiased” story ABC? … HELP! We are being “Hill-Billaryed”
Posted by: sumterala | October 2, 2007, 11:23 am 11:23 am
I wish there actually WERE a republican candidate for me to rag on! Keep Talking repubs, you are sooooooooo losing! Ha! Ha!
Posted by: DemsRuleAmerica | October 2, 2007, 11:28 am 11:28 am
Any one that thinks that all of this money is being donated with no strings
attatched is too misinformed to vote…
no matter which party we are refering to, most of this money is from special interest groups. You don’t see all of this money being donated to “worth while” causes-only to the puppet that eventually wins.
Posted by: sazkat | October 2, 2007, 11:33 am 11:33 am
This is Soooooo not important. All the money in the world won’t get this gadfly elected.
Posted by: Jake | October 2, 2007, 11:34 am 11:34 am
I think this idiotic headline is part of why politics seem like football. Let me quote someone else from this thread: “WHY does MONEY seem to make more of a difference in this country’s politics than PHILOSOPHY?” Answer: because they choose not to do what’s right. They keep saying they do good, yet proceed with all the deeds of the devil, such as mass-deceit, mass-murder, industrialised theft, global plunder. Thus, they are a nation of morally-corrupt hypocrits.
Posted by: tony hart | October 2, 2007, 11:42 am 11:42 am
Thats just great. Maybe they could start representing the all people and not just the ones who donate. That is most of the problem with this country’s politics! They should not be able to raise a dime. They should report to the people that elected them not the greedy people who donate and expect something in return!
Posted by: AM | October 2, 2007, 11:50 am 11:50 am
This is very biased reporting. First, she did not crush him. ABC is using her total grab (27 million) vs. his primary grab (19 million). When general election dollars are compared, the total is $22 million vs. $19 million – I don’t think anyone would call that “crushing.”
Second, their total primary grabs of $74.9 million for Obama and $62.6 million from Clinton tell that despite her (not crushing) advantage in the third quarter, he has outraised her significantly for the year. He has raised much more support and from more people. Because Hilary gave $10 million to her campaign, they ahve about equal amounts.
Third, how many donors does Clinton have? Obama has 350,000 donors. Looking at second quarter results from various states, she has lots of $4,600 and $2,300 donations – her volume of donors is much, much less.
Fourth, because the reporter hopes to reinforce Clinton’s inevitability and not look critically at the numbers, the fact that Obama has outraised her with an entirely new network and approach while she has had her husband’s network and help is not mentioned. It is instead reported as AHA! Clinton got Obama. Instead, fairness would dictate “Clinton closed the gap in fundraising with Obama.”
And finally, she has had to return a lot of money and not just from Hsu. ABC’s reporter failed to discount her total because of that.
Posted by: Paul Sother | October 2, 2007, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Anyone see her report the Hillary’s Cackle which she referred to as a Chuckle..How bad are these people? Have they no integrity? Even the most ardent Hillary supporter must agree that this once great news organization worships at the Altar of Bill Clinton!
Posted by: Ravi | October 2, 2007, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
Give it up republicans! You had your chance and you blew it! All one hears from air bag republicans is how they have better ideas than liberals. Well, just look as the condition of the country under their rule, a total disaster. A cloned pig would be a better president than GB.
Posted by: Becky | October 2, 2007, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Genlin, so do you think the media had already elected GW the second time? If I recall it was practially a done deal that Kerry would win. They were all shocked when he didn’t. I can’t help but ownder if we won’t see this ame thing happen again. Yes media, keep lowering the expectations for GO’Ps chances and we may be in for another pleasant surprise, like 04. We can only go up. Hillary can only go down.
Bob, I’m one of those, what you call, “Moralists/GOPers” and I don’t see anything “sneaky” here. Hillary jsut did a great job. She deserves credit. I congraulate her and honestly think our (The GOP’s) best/only chance of remaining in Power is with her being elected the Dem nominee. Now, Obama would worry me a lot more…hey, I even liek the guy!
I just hope the US doesn’t have another HillBilly in office! But, I’m ready to accept it if that does indeed happen. HEy, I’ll throw you guys a bone, she’s alot better than I ahd expected and a whole lot better than her slimy husband.
Posted by: lovemall | October 2, 2007, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
Any Democrat over any Republican is better for the country. The GOP is out of touch with the USA. Vote Democrat to save the country from going down the drain!
Posted by: Jeff | October 2, 2007, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
I just hope the US doesn’t have another HillBilly in office! But, I’m ready to accept it if that does indeed happen. HEy, I’ll throw you guys a bone, she’s alot better than I ahd expected and a whole lot better than her slimy husband.
Posted by: lovemall | Oct 2, 2007 12:15:31 PM
Another HillBilly in office? So what is George Bush? Royalty? Yea, right!
Posted by: Becky | October 2, 2007, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Bush was just in Australia, and he called them “Austrians.” What an idiot. The only HillBilly, is the one that’s been in office for the past six years. _________________________ Oh, don’t forget, “Is our children learning?” _______________ and my personal favorite, “Nukeeler Weapons.” ____ The real HillBilly is GWB.
Posted by: DemsRuleAmerica | October 2, 2007, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
Mr. Sother …. and only a couple more here have a real grasp on the bias of this ABC blog being so heavily slanted in favor of “Clintonializing” America. If it were Obama that had been caught with the campaign money frauds, where would he be? Probably jailed and out of the race. But Hillary? Many of her former cronies went to jail on her and her husband’s behalf but the “House of Clinton” went on to more political asperations. … “Senator” Clinton’s most recent aversion of wrongful money adds more to the the credence of abounding bias toward any polititian who opposes “Clintonialism.”
Posted by: sumterala | October 2, 2007, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
Sometimes they give the totals for how much was raised for the primaries (Clinton 22 Obama 19) and sometimes they give a grand total for the primary and general election (Clinton 27 Obama 20) Just thought I would clear tha up.
Posted by: waleeg | October 2, 2007, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
This is bad news for Obama. He has been climbing in the polls while Hillary has been dipping slightly. However, Obama’s only advantage to this point has been money. If he does not change the perception that Hillary is the presumptive winner, then his money will dry up and his campaign will sputter. There is still plenty of time, but no change favors Hillary.
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | October 2, 2007, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
ABC News says “Clinton Cruches Obama”. What the ?$#%!&?
Barack still has raised more money for the primary than Clinton by seven million. But for some reason, ABC News seems to think that he has not “crushed” her. Something is fishy at ABC
Posted by: PJ | October 2, 2007, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
you are showing your obvious ignorance of learning disabilities. Just because someone has a disability or speech impediment doesn’t make them idiots. No doubt you would have thought “Clefties” or dyslexics as having been dumb if you hadn’t been educated about them.
Actaully, Bush suffers from a typical problem–called “Malaprops” where you insert the wrong word and sometimes don’t even realise it. (You actually know what the right word is but under stress, or pressure or lack of sleep, the wrong word comes out–like when one calls one’s child by another name, for example.) It is certainly no reflection of intellectual capacity.
Now, if you think he’s an idiot becasue of his policies, fair enough, but let’s not fall back to Medieval thinking and label somone who has a learning disability as metally insufficient! That is just plain cruel. That, itself, is idiotic!
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Finally some good news for Hillary.Not only did she give herself a 10 million dollar loan, but she found 100,000 contractors to donate to her campaign.She raised 27 million but will have to give back half due to another scam.She has the name and ther MSM to her advantage and Obama came out of nowhere to give her the fight of her life.Does she know that 24000 people came to see Obama in her own backyard.He still leads in primary money with her borrowing 10 million from her senate campaign.But come Jan, all you Hillraisers can jump on the Obama bangwagon , we will need you come 08.
Posted by: Alex J, Atlanta,GA | October 2, 2007, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
All the networks seem to want Hillary to win and seem to slant their stories that way. I haven’t met anyone who wants her to win and almost all the people I talk to about politics want to vote Dem.
Posted by: ES | October 2, 2007, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
If Guiliani is the guy for the GOP then even I, as a staunch coservative Republican, would consider voting Democrat if the right person was nominated for the Dems, but I definitely won’t if it’s Hillary. I would have to vote for Guiliani in that case. Otherwise, if it wasn’t Hillary, I would probably abstain altogether. But, I would consider Obama, Edwards and Biden over McCain or Guiliani. This should be pretty telling in itself as I know a lot of other conservative Repub voters who feel the exact same way.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
thanks for the info. Our president, however, is an idiot, long term.
Posted by: DemsRuleAmerica | October 2, 2007, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
One thing that people need to remember is that the current DNC chairman was once deemed to be the ticket winner based on the cash the raised (2004). But, in spite of the money he raised, he fell so hard, he’s still picking up pieces of himself!
Posted by: Getalife | October 2, 2007, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
Fred is going to mop the floor with Obama and Clinton. They don’t stand a chance. Period. But go ahead and keep donating to the liberal Obama and Hillary. LOL
Posted by: thompson08 | October 2, 2007, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
Evidently, not all the Hsu’s have dropped! Conniving Calculating Clinton has probably sold the Lincoln bedroom 1 million times over.
Posted by: ALEX H. | October 2, 2007, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
my only question — if they can raise that kind of money why do we have such poverty, no health care for about 1/2 of the citizens, the elderly who worked all thier lives living terrible conditions and lousy education??? why not put that money where it is needed and not to someone elected that will tell us in February that there is no money to fund these concerns.
Posted by: harper | October 2, 2007, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
Fred is going to mop the floor with Obama and Clinton. They don’t stand a chance. Period. But go ahead and keep donating to the liberal Obama and Hillary. LOL
Posted by: thompson08 | Oct 2, 2007 1:32:39 PM
Well thompson08, Fred better have a big mop…The man just looks over the hill and not even a good actor. If he’s the one republicans have been waiting for, Lots of Luck!
Posted by: Becky | October 2, 2007, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
ouch
Posted by: ryan | October 2, 2007, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
Harper, teh problem is that throwing money at thes things liek education is not necessarily the answer. A good case in point is the D.C. school district–it is one of the best fundeed school districts per student in the land and yet it is one of the worst performing! Why is that? Because of the undue influence and corruption of the NEA. What is needed is actually some serious reform with shcool choice, etc. We need to kick out these cronies who hold their monopoly over the public schools.
Your point is well taken though that obviously there is money to go around, but we chose folly over real principle.
BTW, I don’t think Thiompson has a chance. He looks too much liek a fat cat, Nixionian type, regardless of wha this principles are. It shouldn’t matter but we all know that does. As stated before, the only real chacne we Repubs ahve is a massive backlash against Hillary but the fact is we have to accept it, there just aren’t as many conservative minded people in the country anymore. The younger generations are getting increasingly liberal.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Whatever folks. Not one of you EVER thought a black man in America could raise as much money as Obama did in the first dang place. And it came from us giving $5, $10 and $25 dollars. We have made our statement and whether he becomes president or not, you know what we are capable of…now don’t you!
Posted by: gaby | October 2, 2007, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
And who titled this ‘Clinton crushes Obama?’
Posted by: gaby | October 2, 2007, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
I wish the republicans actually HAD a candidate so that I could rag on him. Republicans don’t have anyone to rally behind. GO HILLARY!
Posted by: DemsRuleAmerica | October 2, 2007, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
[All the networks seem to want Hillary to win and seem to slant their stories that way.]
Huh??
Try this, type in CNN
They are Atlanta based and Obama biased. If fact, they trashed Hillary this a.m.
Posted by: mustkilltreemake2x4 | October 2, 2007, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
Please god, if either of them get elected let them do good, please!! We need a good president right now…
Posted by: dan burkard | October 2, 2007, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
Not NEA–I meant NTA! LOL. Hey, change the NEA whilst we’re at it!…
Gaby, I don’t think anyone is that surprised that a black man is able to command such sums. It just needed to be the right guy, not someone as loony left as Sharpton or Jackson. It had nothing to do with colour really, but a lot to do with rehtoric and policies. Obama is a good politician, whether one likes his positions or not. I am not surprised he was able to raise that kind of cash. He is very affable and doesn’t come across as crazed and angry the whole time like some of his counterparts.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Congratulations, Madam President!
Posted by: hotboinla | October 2, 2007, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
dzigner: Speaking as part of the “younger generation,” I think we’re getting increasingly LIBERTARIAN, not liberal. As such, we combine aspects of liberalism and conservatism. For example:
We don’t think the government should spy on us, or regulate the internet, or worry about two gay guys getting hitched. We also don’t think “spreading democracy” through no-win police actions around the world is a valid use of our military.
Likewise, we don’t think we should be forced to pay into a fraudulent Social Security system which won’t exist when WE want to retire. We think taxes are just a way for the federal government to find new ways of wasting money. We think having more choices (such as you bring up regarding schools) is a good thing. We think the federal government should stop giving hand-outs to “special interests” AND corporations alike.
Our generation will hopefully be the one to throw out this two-party system and bring us back to what used to make our country great.
Posted by: Greg8898 | October 2, 2007, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
Greg, I like your insights. I’m more on the young side myself but I think you are right. Sometimes, at least socially, libertarians can seem liberal.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
It doesn’t matter if you vote or not, the major corporations and their mouthpiece, the corporate owned media will rig the election if they have to, so Hillary wins.
Posted by: kenny | October 2, 2007, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
why is it so hard for repubs to believe that a majority of democrats, and a plurality of Americans, want Hill to be prez?! stop hatin’! it’s not the media, rather real Americans who are ready for a change. And we want a strong, smart and sophisticated leader to take us there. She’s our girl!
Posted by: hotboi | October 2, 2007, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Most would hardly say Hillary represents real change to the process! Now, Obama or Edwards, yes, but Hillary? No.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
This 2008 Presidential Election has already been brought and sold-out by the rich powerful American elites. So poor people beware of the next USA President.
Posted by: RedMoons | October 2, 2007, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
Not surprisingly, the big guys (and gal) are ALL bought and paid for by the BIG DONORS. And sometimes (a lot, actually) the same big donors give to both parties’ “leading candidates.”
Interesting. And kinda scary…
Posted by: Greg8898 | October 2, 2007, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
Clinton is too polarizing. She’ll never win the general election. Dems need to back someone who stands a chance.
Posted by: George | October 2, 2007, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
Mike Gravel is the only candidate calling for a 4th branch of government, we the people.
Posted by: kenny | October 2, 2007, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
None of this is even relevant! Who cares how much they have raised. They are spending it to get publicity when RON PAUL gets his for free because he has 40,000 volunteers at last count. I know in vegas alone I have counted 800 individual banners that are completely different made for RON PAUL!!! We need to support the constitution and put RON PAUL in office! Arent you all tired of being lied to? I mean obama and clinton both voted to push us deeper into the war and spend more money in may of 2007 yet they tell us they want us out. I mean come on they lie once then they will lie again!! RON PAUL FOR PRES!!!!
Posted by: Jeremy | October 2, 2007, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
It’ll be interesting to see what Mr. Paul’s numbers are. I’m guessing he’ll be at or above McCain, and not far behind the rest of the Republicans. He also will have lots of money on hand with no debt, something many of the other candidates lack.
And it’ll all be from us “little” people, the ones the rest of the candidates like to ignore.
Posted by: Greg8898 | October 2, 2007, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
I just pity republicans despite all their donations and support for Obama, we the democrats knew better where Obama contributins and support are coming from. Has any one bother to ask why the republicans candidates are not doing well in fund raising? The republicans that would have donated to their candidates are the same donors to Obama. We understand the political dame
Hillary Go You are our girl.
Posted by: Kayode | October 2, 2007, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
Actually, Kayode, according to donations, Hillary is the girl of commercial banks and big media conglomerates–just like Mr. Obama.
And I really doubt that many Republicans are switching sides to support Mr. Obama. I think he’s just bringing in a lot of new donors. The leading Republican candidates are completely “blah” to the party’s conservative base–which explains the lack of donations.
Aside from Ron Paul–who has grass-roots support among Republicans, Libertarians, and some Democrats–there’s no one on the Republican side who generates any kind of excitement among voters. No one’s going to spend money on someone who’s uninspiring.
Posted by: Greg8898 | October 2, 2007, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
Who cares about how much money each one gets? Why is this news? What I care about is how they intend to initiate change in our country…not how much is in their wallets.
Posted by: VeteranD | October 2, 2007, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
Greg, that’s right.
Anotehr issue I see with Obama is that he is appealling to a far larger base of voters on the whole. However, many of these donations are coming from young and would be first time voters in the next general election. They don’t have the cash to keep coughing up so it’s inevitable to see Hillary take the lead. I think Obama’s base is going to quickly dry up unless more are willing to send in additional amounts which I doubt will happen.
Hillary is definitely on the rise “now” but we have to keep in mind her initial funds included $10m from her own account left over from the her Senate race! If you take that out, Obama is still way in the lead, but, yes, trouble is brewing for him.
I just don’t get why Obama hasn’t spent more time being truly “inspirational” as he was in the 04 Dem Convention speech. That seems to have been his peak. Nothing he’s done since comes even close. He needs more substance I guess.
Posted by: dzigner | October 2, 2007, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
I am woman hear me roar…in numbers too big to ignore…what a great race as I always wondered if a woman or a black would get to be President first…sorry Condi…that failed loser you worked for sorta took you out of the hunt…the repubs will go for the martial law cancel election deal cause they aint got squat to offer anymore.
Posted by: daddy | October 2, 2007, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm
Now let’s see if I get this straight — total dollars and Obama still ahead, total donors and Obama still ahead and the headline reads Hillary crushes Obama??? I thought we were going for a semblance of impartiality?? Or now that the media has cow-towed to Bush — Clinton Mr & Ms. are next?????
Posted by: Paulet | October 2, 2007, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
I know who I would like to vote for. You see, I am no longer interested in hearing all of these candidates rant and rave and expound on all their individual attributes and impressive credentials. Nor do I want to hear all of the soon to be broken promises regarding what wonderful things that they are going to do for the American people. At fifty years old I finally realized that I am not so interested in “Leadership.” I am far more interested in “Representation” Therein lays the problem I think: We keep using the term “Leadership.” I want “Representation!” When we allow these Bozo’s the lofty narcissistic notion of thinking themselves “Leaders” then we can expect diminishing returns when it comes to “Representation”. Mr. or Mrs. President please is advised. It’s a job. And “we the people” are your employer. Frankly, I don’t need to be led any where. So who ever takes to the stage, sets down and shuts up and begins to listen to the American people is the one who get’s my vote. God, wouldn’t that be wonderful?
Posted by: michaelbasham | October 2, 2007, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
I believe the Senator has got the majority of women voters in the south..It is about time that a woman puts the USA back on the Homefront to secure what our vital interest are..and shows how her husband can back her stance..this time with truth and dignity from so much pain…Apachecheynne
Posted by: Apachecheynne | October 2, 2007, 7:40 pm 7:40 pm
Obama – Clinton… ABC seems to be really pushing these two Democreatures on the American electorate…. by GIVING them lots of FREE pres coverage… every word they utter is NEWS…. Hehehehehheh hahahhahahha … everyday, 24hrs a day…. it seems they always have 3, 4, 5, 6 or more headlines stories on them everyday…. We know who ABC is rooting for…
Posted by: FidoNY | October 2, 2007, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
Crushes?? Huh?? $20M is huge. Sorry, Hillary-lovers at ABC, Obama is in it for the long haul. Real America wants Obama.
Posted by: bob | October 2, 2007, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
Poor Obama, he can’t sleep tonight, wooohooohooo… Hillary for President!!!!!!!!
Posted by: swissdiver | October 3, 2007, 12:20 am 12:20 am
Yes, Obama is crushed, devastated, demolished, heartbroken, frittered away. This trying hard boastful no-nothing neophyte is an embarrasment. Hillary is it!!!!!
Posted by: Troy | October 3, 2007, 12:29 am 12:29 am
Wow! Clinton “crushes” obama? She outraisedhim on just an isolated single quarter by $3 mil. and the headline is “crushes”? BTW they have said they have included HSU’s 850,000 claiming “the FEC requires us to report while it is under investigation..”. Also 10 million is from her previous senate campaign and not raised for this presidential campaign. Why don’t the media give the complete information?This is why the public is tiredand sick of the corporate media.
Posted by: meg | October 3, 2007, 1:58 am 1:58 am
I guess if Obama wants to catch up with Clinton, he’ll have to start accepting “dirty” money, the way the Clinton’s made their millions. Don’t lower yourself to the level of a snake Obama! If Clinton wins it will be out of total dishonesty to the american people. The Clinton’s don’t care as long as their bank account grows. You democrats need to look elsewhere for political idols besides “Whitewash”, Arkansas!
Posted by: Joe Nunyabis | October 3, 2007, 6:37 am 6:37 am
Clinton gets her money from big business and lobby firms. Clinton will be four more years of bush when will the american get smart there being duped again.obama gets his money from small people.
Posted by: pops | October 3, 2007, 9:20 am 9:20 am
“Clinton Crushes Obama?” She raised just 3 million more in primary money….I wouldn’t exactly say she crushed him, considering he still has millions more in primary money, and more cash on hand.
A little pro-clinton spin, don’t you think?
Posted by: Jared | October 3, 2007, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Just the other day I was reading a post from an Obama fan stating that Clinton could never raise as much money as Obama because she gets her donations from corporate sources and they are “tapped out” whereas he gets his from the people. Ha! it sure looks like they are “tapped out”.
Posted by: BTL musings | October 3, 2007, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
MONEY should NOT be the important factor, their CHARACTER (past AND present) & their AGENDAS SHOULD be the IMPORTANT FACTORS!!! Dennis Kucinich in 2008!!!
Posted by: truemaven | October 3, 2007, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
If my memory serves me right, didn’t Obama include “sales” (not donations) for campaign paraphernalias as “donations” to make his numbers look higher in the second quarter? That to me is deceiving, misrepresenting, tampering and a total lie just so he can show he got higher donations than Hillary. I guess this speaks much about his character or the lack thereof.
Posted by: Troy | October 4, 2007, 1:21 am 1:21 am
Oprah was irrelevant after all. All the hoopla about her endorsing Obama fell on deaf ears. Obama supporters thought he would surpass Hillary in donations this quarter because of Oprah, but no one listens to her anymore. She’s passe and so is he.
Posted by: swissdiver | October 4, 2007, 1:30 am 1:30 am
Obama will be our new president. no matter how Hilary cheats her way with willing media, we, americans, want a new deal. we don’t want old wine and old jar. we want our new wine in a new jar.
When “respectable”media turn to lies, it becomes very unsettling: facts and figures don’t match abc news and cnn repeat outlet’s stories. what a shame.
Posted by: alia | October 4, 2007, 6:46 am 6:46 am
you can say what you may but please remember when bill clinton was in office he turned this country around and did great things for us. we had money in our pockets and things were getting better for us. since bush this country has been turned into his private corporation and has been run in the ground. witha clinton administration we will get back our integrity and honor that george bush has so flagerantly given away just so he could be a war time president. over two hundred billion has been given to a country that does not want us there. that money could have been spent to help the american people that need and deserve it. my vote will go to hillary and bill clinton.
Posted by: jerry | October 5, 2007, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm