Comments on Over $40 Million

Or her tax returns.

In case nobody's noticed.

Crack Dealers, Pimps, and the Ho's dat lub dem must be organizing!!!!

Vote Hillary

Why would a Clinton staffer be offering a line like this? They're basically saying Richardson felt Obama was unelectable or unprepared, but then changed his mind. I don't see how this is supposed to help the anti-Obama case.

Obama/elenchos '08
Why? Because! That's why.

Some of that was me. Most of the money from the Obama fundraiser at Von's was in checks, so it shows up next quarter.

The only money Clinton is getting is from big business, if you look at the chart breakdown in the Wall Street Journal (print edition, it was this week, in the A section). And that's drying up.

The only money Clinton is getting is from big business, if you look at the chart breakdown in the Wall Street Journal (print edition, it was this week, in the A section). And that's drying up.

Or maxed out. Clinton gets more money from each donor, but she has fewer individual donors. The problem with that is that because donations are capped, she can't hit up her big donors because some of them are already capped.

Obama, on the other hand, can go back to the well more often because his donors often are no where near the cap.

So not only does Obama bring in more money from more people, but he can pass the hat around more often. Which is why he has been able to sustain high returns. Not to mention this past reporting period he picked up donations from 200,000 first timers.

Heck, I've barely given $100 so far, and in the past I've given around $2000 to $3000 in a presidential campaign - apparently this is typical of Obama donors, we have vast untapped resources (right next to our vast tracts of land ... yearning to be free).

It's also why donations to Emily's List, NOW/PAC, and other pro-Clinton groups are much lower than usual - large donors know where the money would go, and we're not stupid.

I'm guessing her amount will be $40,000,000.01

@3:

a. because it was true: Richardson did say Obama can't win.

b. a staffer would "offer" that statement because a diligent reporter kept pestering him or her perhaps.

d. Also because misleading incomplete information was being reported ....that it was Clinton saying Obama can't win ....when in fact the context was Richardson was saying Obama can't win....or he said it first, seems like they both said it.....kind of important context actually.

Remember context? With Rev. Wright? Context is for other people, too.

The full story seems to be that Richardson repeatedly told Bill Clinton he wouldn't endorse anyone else, Bill took that as a commitment, Richardson says it wasn't a commitment, okay fair enough there's a dispute there, also Richardson earlier was saying Obama is too inexperienced and can't win, Clinton says Obama can't win, later on after the big speech making Rev. Wright about race instead of anti Americanism, Richardson changes his mind and thinks Obama can win....so he endorses Obama.

So we know one thing coming out of this:
Richardson changed to be with a winner -- exactly when he perceived one candidate breaking ahead -- he jumped right on board.

How very adroit & "new politics" his shift was!!

I'm also one of those who has been giving Obama $100 or $50 every paycheck for the last few months.

We should point out that politico.com and other sites have been reporting rumors that the Clinton campaign have been stiffing some of their debtors - not paying their bills on time.

It's just a rumor, but Bear-Stearns exposure to CBOs and other debt was a rumor too ...

money doesn't matter when you have the eye of the tiger. you'll see.

Un PC-

Everything you perpetuate as 'fact' is in reality, hearsay. Only Bill Richardson and Bill Clinton truly know what was said between them about Obama, and for either side to pawn off arguments as 'facts' is really weak to rely on.

But once again you ignore the main, real FACT regarding this post: that Obama continues to raise money hand over fist and his well doesn't look like it's drying up anytime soon. It's intersting how you can never directly respond to an arguement, but only rely on knee-jerk talking points.

ss, don't fall for it. unPC is a troll.

In the midst of thousands of mortgate forclosures, failing domestic abuse shelters, dwindling supplies in many food banks, (and your own pick for US Crisis), where is our money going?

To buy our pick for the next President. For a mere $50-100 dollars a paycheck you can purchase...er, I mean, support your choice in this election. A vote is nice and all, but real Americans demonstrate their patriotism and need for change with their pocketbook.

When I think about the amount of money spent merely on advertising (for all the candidates) in this election I die a little inside. If either candidate really wants to save America they should request their supporters use any available funds to support projects in their local area. But I suppose that's not as fun as bragging about your electoral financial purchase.

Why have we come to see this massive waste of funds as proof of a candidates fitness for office?