If you have "no place to go," come here!

$10 million?!

For a campaign that everybody who is anybody says is so poorly runMR SUBLIMINAL They didn't hire me as to disqualify Hillary for higher office, this number is not too shabby:

Her finance director, Jonathan Mantz, told the same donors that between 10 p.m. Tuesday and 2:35 p.m. Wednesday, the campaign brought in $10 million, including contributions from 60,000 new donors.

Anybody have any idea whether this is a record of some kind?

Granted, the campaign was running on fumes; but there's also a certain courage to throwing everything onto the table--and then being rewarded.

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I believe it was The Most Money Ever Raised by a Female Presidential Candidate in April on a Single Day :-)

But here's the thing. I think the Clinton campaign wanted to be cash-poor.

I mean, what has been the talking point of every pro-Clinton person on TV for the last four days? How much more money Obama spent than Clinton. It was dragged out before the vote in case the margin wash't big enough, and has been mentioned every third sentence since the results started coming in.

Its political ju-jitsu -- turn your opponents strength into a weakness.

Right before the primary, there were leaks out of the clinton campaign about "donor fatigue" and how badly off financially the campaign was, and that became fodder for the media -- as a result the minute she won in PA, there was a ton of spontaneous giving -- pretty much like what happened when it was announced that she'd loaned her campaign $5 million.

The media ignored the fact that Obama lost Ohio and Texas despite having ALL the media, money, and momentum on his side -- this time, the Clinton camp was not about to allow the significance of her victory in PA to be minimized.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Counting Florida and Michigan, more votes have been cast for her than for any democrat ever in the nominating process. Pretty cool.

And is it me, or does the press narrative seem to be changing a bit? I don't mean the long time haters, but others. Sometimes it's just the headlines, but headlines are important. Here are some examples that I've found:

"How Clinton Can Win It" by Chris Cilizza,

EJ's Precinct, "Can Obama Close the Deal?"

AP, "Both Obama and Clinton camps claim lead in popular votes"

US News, "Clinton Win Seen As Giving Her Momentum"

Of course, there are still plenty that go the other way, most probably, but I still wonder if some in the press aren't going to turn on Obama, especially if he doesn't win Indiana. BTW, via Talk Left, the Indianapolis Star is calling for a debate (

And, while I'm sure this is mostly to face the NYT, the Washington Post's Editorial Board says the democratic race should go on.

CognitiveDissonance's picture
Submitted by CognitiveDissonance on

I have a feeling that the Clinton campaign is going to start using his refusal to do any more debates against him. And they should - it definitely makes him look like he's afraid of something, particularly after his debacle last week.

I'm from Oregon and I got an email from her to go sign a petition calling for Oregon debates. Now Indiana is getting into the picture as well. I think she should push this heavy. His refusal makes him look bad. Plus, it's TV time she doesn't have to pay for.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

It didn't hurt Obama in Wisconsin. The problem is that he isn't just refusing to debate because he's the frontrunner, as he did in Wisconsin. He's refusing to debate after whining about how hard the last one was and having his supporters chant - Chant! - "no more debates." So in the current context it could start to look like he's running scared.

I tend to think these kind of criticisms only hurt a candidate when they play into larger concerns about him or her (whether those concerns are fair or not). To the extent some in the press (Newsweek, which asked if Obama was the next Kerry, Maureen Dowd and others) and the GOP work to smear Obama as weak, this time the failure to debate could play into that narrative. I think it could hurt him in Indiana in particular because the demos aren't great for him there. Some of the stuff that tripped him up in the last debate (Wright, Ayers) could be real problems for him in Indiana and if his refusing to debate starts to look like he simply doesn't want to answer questions about these things, then that could become a problem.

But that depends largely on the media. Two things in Clinton's favor are 1) the media make money off of debates and 2) Obama isn't making himself available to the press. It's that last one that's likely to be a killer. If they never get a chance to ask him questions, you can bet that's eventually going to show in the coverage.