TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.04.2008
All About the Benjamins

Forget Barack Obama's $40 million fundraising haul in March. This looks to me to be the bigger story:

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson refused to release Clinton's specific fundraising take.... Wolfson said Clinton's fundraising figures would not be made public until the Federal Election Commission required it be done in the middle of this month.

For those keeping track at home, the Clinton campaign released her disappointing but not disastrous $13+ million January total a couple of days into February and her impressive $35 million February take before the month was even over. So I think it's safe to assume the March numbers hold some pretty dismal news. The only question is whether it'd be better to get it out of the way now or have it come out a few days before the Pennsylvania primary. The Clinton campaign has evidently concluded the latter.

Update: CNN reports, "Six hours after senior advisers to Hillary Clinton told reporters her March fundraising total would not be released until later this month, campaign sources tell CNN her campaign raised $20 million during that time period — about half of what rival Barack Obama took in for the month."

Not good news, obviously, but less disastrous than it might have been. Perhaps the campaign decided it was better to get it out of the way three weeks before Pennsylvania after all. 

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:25 PM with 14 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sdemuth said:

I think you should wait until the tea is poured to read tea leaves, frankly.   Could be she's waiting for a big bang one week before the primary.  Could be she had a lousy month.

But, if it is the latter, one has to wonder where all those working class supporters are - shouldn't they be ponying up millions in $25 donations, if they like her so darned much?

April 3, 2008 3:13 PM

virginiacentrist said:

They're holding on as long as possible for one reason:

Superdelegates will flood to Obama if they see that he's more than doubled to him.

Here's my theory:

I bet they asked key contributors and bundlers to backdate checks to February early in March to inflate their March total...this is a typical practice for a campaign that is lagging.

April 20th gives them plenty of time to do the same thing this month. They can collect backdated checks for the next 15 days so that their total isn't horrible.

Then they'll do it again next month. It's a vicious cycle.

April 3, 2008 3:22 PM

ndmackenzie said:

virginiacentrist -

It's a vicious cycle until you run out of days in the month.

April 3, 2008 3:51 PM

blackton said:

Clinton is expected to have raised about $20 million in March. Being that most of March and most of April have only one contest in Pa. that should be plenty. The question is, is she going to play it tight in Pa. and hope her big lead holds up, or will she blow her wad there to keep the lead. So far she is being outspent big there (and complains about it)

April 3, 2008 4:02 PM

sabatia said:

The other day Wolfson let out that the total was around $20 million. Presuming that around half was for the primary--because her donors are maxed out on primary giving--that leaves her $10 million for the primary. She had around $9million in primary debt not even including the $5million she loaned the campaign. So the Hillary Clinton Campaign for President is bankrupt. Bankrupt. (And that doesn't even include, though it is related, the campaign's moral bankrupcy.) She is continuing to rack up debt. She has unpaid bills to smaller venders. She is essentially kiting checks. But at the least, her campaign is financially bankrupt.

April 3, 2008 4:08 PM

scharch said:

Am I the only one who thinks she had a pretty good month and is waiting to announce it for a boost right before the PA primary?

April 3, 2008 4:09 PM

ndmackenzie said:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Clinton raised $20M.

-- Sen. Clinton raised $20 million in March, second highest amount of her campaign. Details of their March fund-raising will be made public in official reports filed with the Federal Election Commission April 20.

-- Though the New York senator trails Sen. Obama in delegates needed for the nomination, Clinton advisers and fund-raisers said her donors remain enthusiastic. But her fund-raisers also say she relied too much on large donors early in the cycle.

-- "That pool is reduced," said Larry Stone, a Clinton fund-raiser in Silicon Valley who also is the Santa Clara County assessor. "Hillary came really late to the game in effective fund-raising on the Internet as compared to Barack Obama … Many of the solid enthusiastic Clinton supporters were maxed out."

online.wsj.com/.../SB120723253625786483.html

April 3, 2008 4:10 PM

xian said:

The Huffington Post just published her numbers at over 50 million. Not good news for who? So much for not being able to raise money.

April 3, 2008 4:42 PM

WoodyBombay said:

xian,

You misread. That's the Clintons' personal finances.

I really don't think that fundraising totals impress voters all that much, so releasing in hopes of getting a primary boost is questionable at best (I don't think that's what they're doing, anyway). It impresses activists, party officials, elected officials, the media.

April 3, 2008 4:59 PM

letsinb said:

Uh, that's the advance word on Bill and Hill's income, "since leaving the White House seven years ago..."

April 3, 2008 4:59 PM

tembrach said:

Hillary is about to roll over Barack. I was talking to my buddy Joey, who lives outside Harrisburg. Joey predicts Hillary will win by  about 70% to 25%. I mean, it won't even be close. That, combined, with  her inevitable victory in Indiana make HRC the presumptive Dem nominee

Barack can only win boutique states. The heartland is owned by Hillary

Barack should concede as soon as possible, for the sake of party uniity.  If he persists in his foolishness, they will only help McCain in November.

-Tem

P.S. Wolfson is a genius, as is most of the senior staff on her campagn.

They have effectively silenced the nattering nabobs of negativism

April 3, 2008 5:06 PM

blackton said:

tem, is this supposed to be humourous? your pal Joey from Harrisburg? I am from Pa. and besides my elderly parents and other old farts Obama is cleaning Hillary's clock along the whole Delaware river area (where most people live). Your friend Joey lives in the rural, Alabama wing of the state where most people marry their cousins, hence I would take whatever he says with a huge grain of salt. I guarantee Barack will take 90% of the vote, and Hillary will become a nun out of embarressment.

April 3, 2008 6:05 PM

sullydog said:

You're all wrong. I had a Philly cheese steak sammich for lunch today, and a bagel with Philadelphia cream cheese for breakfast. They told me that Hil and Barack will be discovered together in an abandoned Pittsburgh steel mill doing something Nature didn't intend, and run off to Costa Rica with a combined $60M they swindled from contributors. _I_ will therefore win the Philadelphia primaries, and for the good of the party the Superdelegates will flock to me. Monica Lewinsky will be my runnybunny mate, causing Bill's head to implode (yes, THAT one).

And just wait until I'm sworn in. Unitary executive? You poor fucks ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.

April 4, 2008 12:31 AM

boxofrox said:

sully is getting on his TGIF.  Rock on man.

April 4, 2008 10:22 AM