The Clinton campaign, making the case that Hillary is more electable, argues about swing states, big states, blue states, the preferences of hardworking white Americans, and the Electoral College map of Karl Rove. But what about the money?
The Obama money machine raised another $31 million in April. Obama has a balance of $37 million on hand for the primary, another $9 million for the general, and added 200,000 new donors to bring his total to 1.475 million. He's already merging his operation with the DNC.
Clinton has trailed in the money race since January. She got $22 million in April, and has $6.7 million cash on hand for the primary -- but also has $20 million in debts, including $11.4 million to herself and another $8 million or so to various vendors, a segment of which the campaign has been slow walking to stay afloat.
So, Obama has an unprecedented money machine and Clinton has red ink. When they tell the superdelegates how much more electable Hillary is, what do they say about the money?
Take the nomination away from Obama and he and his donors will turn over their money machine to us anyway, because they're such nice people?
Comments (2)
Thank you for starting this conversation!!
The answer to your question regarding Hillary's money problems
"OPERATION CHAOS"
The very thought that it may be working sickens me. But, how
else can you account for her inability to raise the money needed
to fund her campaign when she claims to have millions of die hard
supporters (other than women).
The math doesn't add up. She has a large percentage of votes that have been cast for her, but those individuals apparently do not believe in her ability enough to sacrifice their hard earned dollars to support her candidacy.
Also, factor in, when polls are taken nationally among democrats.
Barrack, is the overwhelming choice to represent the democratic party in the fall election. Render feedback, please!!
I'm tired of Myspace, CNN and every other mass media being rediculously pro-Obama, refusing to cover the candidates equally. It seems as if most reporters and news anchors were operating under the assumption, "Oh, Obama! We could never be mad at you!"
Were Senator Clinton in Obama's position, she'd have equal fundraising right now; even so, if she managed to gain the nomination, it would attract many of the superdelegates (who previously remained neutral) , to donate the maximum amount of money to her campaign, not to mention the millions of Obama supporters who agreed to support her should she take the nomination.
It's time the media start presenting the facts, not pushing their own agenda.
Shame on you, Myspace.