Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« A New Record | Notes from the Prayer Warrior »

Thursday, February 28, 2008

I’ll See Your $35 Million and Raise You…

posted by on February 28 at 11:25 AM

Most of the Slog world seems to think Hillary Clinton is finished, but the rest of the online world? Well, it helped give Clinton her best fund raising month ever in February, bringing her $35 million in donations, much of that from online contributions that have been pouring in at a rate of about $1 million a day.

That’s a lot of money for ads in Texas and Ohio.

Still, Obama is reportedly on track to report an even bigger number: over $50 million in February.

RSS icon Comments


And yet the word on the ground is the turnout and ground troops are even higher for Obama than for Clinton.

Since she has to win both Texas and Ohio to stay in ... not looking good for her.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 28, 2008 11:28 AM

Eli, you made me feel kind of stupid for thinking Hillary was finished. A million a day. Wow! Thirty five million. Wow. Until I read the last sentence. FIFTY million?

Hillary is finished.

Posted by elenchos | February 28, 2008 11:50 AM

She needs all the money she can get to pay off her debts. She still owes a lot of money to small businesses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Mark "Scumbag" Penn is still waiting for a few million she owes him for his excellent work.

So many of her supporters are deluded to think she'll actually win this one on merits. She hasn't had a real positive news story in weeks because her campaign has been a disaster since Super Tuesday and probably earlier.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 28, 2008 11:52 AM

So maybe... she can BUY her way out of this hole? Good luck.

You forgot to mention Obama hitting the One Million Mark for individual donors.

Would you like another pillow, Hillary?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 28, 2008 11:52 AM

HRC will just have to keep running a plucky, insurgent campaign against the establishment candidate.

Posted by Big Sven | February 28, 2008 11:52 AM

You know what I've noticed? When it's a candidate they support, people take high fundraising numbers as signs that they are scrappy, determined campaigners, and when it's a candidate they oppose, people take take high fundraising numbers as a sign that they are sold-out corporate whores.

Does anybody seriously think that presidential campaigns costing half a billion dollars is a good thing for democracy?

Posted by flamingbanjo | February 28, 2008 11:53 AM

I don't know, but I think that THIS campaign has been great for democracy.

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I'd love to see a breakdown of where all this money eventually gets spent. Probably just going straight to the corporate media henchmen.

Posted by superyeadon | February 28, 2008 12:05 PM

I wonder how many people realize most voters in Texas have already voted?

And that it's an open primary?

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 28, 2008 12:07 PM

Gee, come to think of it, I do hate all this corporate money and corporate media in politics. I guess I'll go vote Nader because another four years of a Republican in the White House will fix everything.

Posted by elenchos | February 28, 2008 12:23 PM

@10 - them's fighting words.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 28, 2008 12:36 PM

Elenchos: Yeah, I get it. I'll vote for whichever Democrat is on the ticket because it's the only pragmatic stance to take. What makes me crazy is that Nader is essentially right about our political process being hijacked by corporate interests, but the game is rigged so it is impossible to challenge that in any substantive way.

When G.W. was running, progressives rightly pointed out that his record-breaking fundraising was a sign of which corporate interests would be calling the shots during his term in office, and did that ever come true. And yet somehow the Democratic candidates taking money from corporate donors (in many cases the very same donors) doesn't bother them. So elections have become about picking which celebrity spokesmodel you prefer and which special interests get to write the policy that they promote. (Who are you voting for? Big Oil? Big Coal? Or Big Pharmaceuticals?)

It's worth noting because because Democrats often act like it is only GOP candidates who sell themselves out to the highest bidder. And since McCain's name is attached to the only campaign finance reform bill in recent memory he is certain to use this fact to appeal to working class voters who are sick of corruption.

There is far too much influence of money in our politics and I won't be a good little Democrat and pretend there isn't.

Posted by flamingbanjo | February 28, 2008 12:37 PM

@6 what you said.
Ofuckmebama is outdistancing Hillary by $15 MILLION and somehow she's still evil for raising money, but man, you all would let him pocket the 15 million for more kool aid and it would be just fine.

Posted by onion | February 28, 2008 12:46 PM

flamingbanjo, it's a straw man to accuse the grown ups of being not bothered by corporate influence. We adults are bothered by it. But because we are responsible, we have our priorities straight. First, win.

I think only way I can explain the left wingers undermining of the Democratic party is the amount of attention you get. Not attention for your issues. Attention for you. And your little childish egos.

Posted by elenchos | February 28, 2008 12:51 PM

Elenchos: Hey, I just said I'm voting for the Democrat. What more do you want? And what's with the name-calling?

Posted by flamingbanjo | February 28, 2008 1:01 PM

I'm criticizing the constant undermining of the Democratic party from the far left. I don't think it helps. If we were up 20 points over McCain, fine. But risking alienating far left voters by saying the Democrats are corporate tools risks letting McCain win, while changing nothing. It's not worth it, but once Obama wins, he will at least listen.

Posted by elenchos | February 28, 2008 1:30 PM

Hey, I went door-to-door in '04 for Kerry, for Chrissakes. And he was a complete tool, which I knew at the time. I'm nothing if not pragmatic.

I just saw one more in the endless litany of stories saying "Yay, my candidate just raised another $50 Million! Number One! Number One! Number One!" and I couldn't take it anymore.

None of this horse-race stuff has anything to do with advancing the public interest. I refuse to do a happy little jig because a candidate, even one I support, just got another $50 Million away from being in a position to serve the public good.

That's all.

Posted by flamingbanjo | February 28, 2008 1:42 PM

ghostlawns @3: I didn't know Mark Penn change his middle name from "Fat-Ass" to "Scumbag"--I guess it's all part of his Re-Positioning Campaign.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | February 29, 2008 4:14 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).