Hillary Clinton has raised more donations for her 2008 presidential race since July than Barack Obama has. The 3rd quarter was the first time Clinton beat Obama in fund-raising efforts.
Clinton raised $27 million; Obama raised $19 million. Clinton also attracted 100,000 new donors last quarter, 7,000 more than Obama's 93,000.
Obama is still well ahead of Clinton in terms of money that can be spent on the primary election. Obama has $74.9 million he can spend on the primary. Clinton has $62.6 million.
In the past, Clinton has significantly downplayed the role of fund-raising in the election process.
"It would mean nothing to my campaign. Nothing at all," said Clinton when it became clear that she had been outraised by Obama before the 2nd quarter results came out. "You know, when I ran in 2000, I was outraised two-to-one. And we're going to do really well. I hope other Democrats do well because that shows the appetite for change. But for me, all I care about is that we're going to have the resources we need to run a winning campaign, and we will."
But now that she has come out on top, the Clinton campaign seems rather pleased. They say this suggests support for Obama is losing steam "big time," as one Clinton aide put it.
Whoever raises the most money, I hope they lose. It takes money to win an election, but these figures are ridiculous. I think the candidates will get more voter support if they donate their raised funds to charity rather than launching huge ad campaigns promoting themselves.
That's probably not even legal......politics.......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I completely agree!! The amount of money that is spent on these campaigns drives me crazy, and I for one, would support a candidate who made a donation to charity as you said. I do find it interesting that you were able to find a time when Hillary contradicted herself. Funds don't matter until she has them, and all of a sudden,she has a sense of pride. I disapprove of the media even reporting the figures of money raised by the candidates, because to me, and hopefully to most people, it just doesn't matter.
This reiterates my point of how much money drives politics. Without funds, you can't become president. Or Senator, Congressman, or local politician. What I didn't realize was how much money these candidates actually raise - how much money they actually spend. This reminds me of the time I visited Vatican City. There I was - amongst the Pope and devout Catholics, who are always saying they combat hunger, disease, etc. And then you tour the place, and you realize that if you spen the amount of money that went into this place, there wouldn't be hunger! I prefer politicians with credibility rather than resources. Unfortunately, running on a platform of credibility doesn't get the job done these days...
I've already commented about a story like this before- but i'm commenting again because i really feel strongly that the amount of money politicians spend on campaigns is ridiculous.
and i really thinks it's funny how you hope whoever raises the most money loses.. i hope the same thing. it's sad... but true.
i haven't decided who i'm going to vote for yet.. but i know that money isn't going to buy my vote.
I guess money makes the world go round on so many levels. The race for president seems to be a business venture and the winner is the one with the most revenue. It's not about having the most capable candidate winning but the one with the most glib tongue accompanied by the craftiest PR and Marketing team. If only people were smart enough to realize that the flashier the ad, the more ineffectual the politician.
Post a Comment