Look, I know that Hillary Clinton is receiving as many votes as Barack Obama. But there just seems to be a chasm in the enthusiasm department. Clinton, who obviously has some high-roller supporters, had to lend herself $5 million of her own money in January. Meanwhile, Obama, whose donors presumably contribute smaller amounts on average, has raised nearly $6 million since the polls closed last night.
If you'll pardon me, I'm going to go contribute again. See you tomorrow.
Your suspicion appears to be correct:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8374_Page2.html
The Obama camp reported last week that it raised $32 million last month. The Clinton campaign reported raising $14 million, and it is unclear if that includes the Clintons’ personal loan.
And, according to the Obama campaign, only 3 percent of his donors have given the maximum $2,300 donation for the primary.
According to a study by The Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political giving, only about a third of the donors who gave Obama $200 or more had given the maximum.
In contrast, Clinton raised about half of her money from donors who gave the maximum.
-- MattM
more brilliantly naive logic! i guess it's okay to forget to remind people that there are contribution caps, and rules about keeping donations during the primary and during the general election separate, so we can ooh, aah wonder what happened to hillary's the "high-rollers." she loaned herself money because she needed money in a hurry, obviously. and the campaign quickly repaid her. should she have waited a few days and missed out on a valuable opportunity to have a tv commercial or make an appearance or pay her staff? they are trying to make a living, you know. you really think obama doesn't have donors with deep (and deeply corrupt) pockets? did we forget about rezko, too?
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope Obama has some donors with deep pockets. But for someone like him to be getting so much more in donations than Clinton says a lot about their grassroots support. As for naive...again, I'm not naive: I'm against the Clintons. I know they want to equate those two things, but it's not going to happen.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
Oh, I overlooked "they're trying to make a living." That's rich. Yes, for the Clintons, making their (very, very good) living and politics are pretty much inseparable. Another mark against them.
ReplyDeletei meant the paid staffers are most likely trying to make a living.
ReplyDeleteActually, it looks like many of the "paid staffers" are no longer being paid:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/clinton-senior.html
-- MattM