Note to Superdelegates: Don't Forget that Money Thing
Yesterday, in response to a question on Fox News Channel, I had an opportunity to speak about the importance of Barack Obama's astonishing and growing money lead over Hillary Clinton heading into Pennsylvania and the remaining primaries. Somewhat obviously, I noted that Obama's $40+ million advantage in cash-on-hand and seemingly endless stream of campaign contributions will provide him the resources necessary -- huge media buys, a robust field operation, and a relentless effort to identify likely voters -- to press his current delegate and polling advantage over Clinton.
But perhaps the most important aspect of Obama's enormous cash advantage is in its inherent repudiation of Senator Clinton's "electability" argument before the superdelegates. That is to say that they should ignore measuring sticks like majorities in delegates or popular vote because she is the Democrats' most formidable candidate for the fall clash with John McCain.
Unfortunately for Clinton, however, never before in the history of our country have we seen anything comparable to the fundraising prowess of the Obama operation -- all the while Clinton's impressive, but outclassed, cash haul leaves her in debt and perhaps soon dependent upon her own personal fortune.
Amazingly, most of Obama's incredible fundraising accomplishment is magically undertaken without requiring any of the candidate's precious time. Instead, the adulation and devotion of well over a million "average" voters is fueling an online fundraising machine that leaves the GOP's legendary Pioneers and Rangers (now reconstituted as McCain's clumsily named Trailblazers and Innovators) literally astounded and weaponless. In March, with Obama/Clinton as his only opponent, McCain's money squad shot a dud -- raising a paltry $15 million. In the same month, Obama topped $40 million in small donations from everyday Democrats... and that was running against a fellow Democrat with whom he shares 90% of the same policy positions.
Just imagine how much Obama will raise when he is running against the Republicans.
Hillary Clinton is not left with many straight-faced arguments to make for her continuing viability at this late stage in the campaign. As a practical matter, she is simply running out of legitimate criteria by which she can be judged Obama's superior. But despite this dearth of arguments, she should beware of resting her case to the superdelegates on the notion of "electability." Last time I checked, fundraising superiority was an important ingredient in winning elections. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Obama's singular fundraising prowess is just one more yardstick by which her candidacy comes up short.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The wheels are coming OFF the Obama band wagon, look out!! No more Crazy glue to keep them attached.
HRC looks STRONG going forward!
More important than Obama's money is Hillary's financial skills. If she had a few mill in the bank and Obama had 40, that is one point, but Hillary is spending herself into the ground...
Wonder if the folks her campaign owes money to will be able to collect from her, or if they just have to write it off. I'd hate for Mark Penn to go broke (grin).
Not only that, she only loaned her own money to the campaign, and is earning interest payments from it. That is pretty pathetic to me. Why doesn't she just invest her money as an investment? Makes people wonder whether she's just keep going just for funds to come in to pay off her campaign's debts.
Money does not translate to votes. See PA.
They sure translate to delegates, though.
What are you talking about? Did you go to school or what? His money advantage ensured his loss was limited, whereas see what happens to all those areas where Hillary didn't spend any money to try and limit her losses, like Idaho where she lost by 40 points. This is proporational representation, not winner takes all like the general.
The real point the supers will look at is how much money Obama spent in big states and still lost. Not a good sign.
He has a run an awesome campaign, I'll grant you that. But spending that much and not winning, that's a big "uh-oh."
If he's not winning, who is?
LOL i just answered the same line of enquiry. I'll answer the same. Obama made sure Hillary's strongest contest she could possibly get (older, less educated, blue collar) wasn't a blowout win for her, and he also made sure Hillary herself blew her own bank to try and match Obama. We are playing by proportional representation here, if he clawed back 10 points from all that spending it was definitely worth it, because Hilary was forced to use credit to try and match Obama.
Save your breath and fingers. Clinton folks are so overjoyed at the near ten point win, they're choosing to forget that she was up by over twenty just weeks ago, has long political family connections in the state,had the entire Pennsylvania Democratic machine behind her, and the Clinton brand-name,....and stil couldn't cut Obama's delegate lead.
Would I have liked to see him win there? Of course, but everyone knew it wasn't going to happen, and that he was spending money to prevent the expected blowout; which he did.
So, let them crow for a while. After all, that's what they'll be eating in a couple of weeks when she's forced to fold, pay up-front, or pull from her own pocket once again.
And include the fact that Senator Obama has run a far more superior, more efficient campaign.
HRC is correct. This country no longer elects bigots and have learned their lesson about electing incompetence from Jimmy Carter.
Did you just call Obama a bigot?? LOL do you have a hat with profanities you draw out of to sling at Obama's direction? On what basis is he a bigot? Or did you mean it in a sarcastic way, as a joke?
The fact is, Clinton isn't running "straight-faced", she is laughing maniacally, which is even more frightening.
Chuckling - no ... the person who can unite the people and their resources (time, effort, money) should get the nom. That becomes coattails for the down-ballot candidates to get a benefit. We all know from the past that the Clinton Coattails are tucked between their legs - whereas Obama has already showed his coattail are long and wide (the special election for Hastert's seat being one example).
Money can't buy you love!
If Obama had the experience or was truely credible in his positions he would have wrapped this up months ago. Fact is he supports a continued war and the NCLB as much as Bush. He already promised our public school money to religious schools back home. If Obama wasnt such a bulltalker he wouldve had our vote.
You forget he wasnt the favourite coming into this race. Long shot doesnt begin to describe it. Why dont you crawl into bed, curl into a fetal position and cuddle with your irrational Islamophobia? Because, Al Qaeda is under your bed.
You sound like one of the dumbasses who voted for Bush in 2004 and 2000. And it is precisely your ignorance of the FACTS and your willingness to be persuaded by lies and negative political campaigning that got America into the craphole it is in now.
Is that IRRATIONAL FEAR warm? Didnt think so. If you want a life, you better do the right thing and vote for the candidate who can restore America to its former glory. McCain is a Bushite and Clinton is just too damn crazy power hungry to do anything that wont benefit her first. Be a man. Vote Obama!
Now, these allegations will simply require some sort of proof. Do you have links? Quotes? Dates? Anything but your opinion?
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself, or people who know?
Brilliant piece; an excellent argument too. I wish Clinton and her diehard supporters paid attention to such important indicators. Clinton relies on a few fat cats, Obama relies on the people--everyday Americans sending $20,25 and so on because they want to own this moment of history, This is good for the country. Thank you for a great argument.
Awesome; so you're saying may the richest candidate get the nom?
No, Chuckles. The richest candidate is McCain and his $100,000,000 sugar-mommy wife, Cindy. The next richest is Billary.
What he's saying is the candidate who has the demonstrated prowess to engage and motivate the PEOPLE to finance his campaign is the most electable.
Whoopi Goldberg is right, the Democratic party is elitist!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
