posted April 03, 2007 02:40 PM            

The dual messages illustrate the hazards of wrapping a campaign around a sense of inevitability, which can exaggerate any signs of perceived or real weaknesses.

The trip-up for both campaigns Monday was Republican Mitt Romney's announcement that he'd raised $20.6 million. All political observers expected Romney to do well. But his sum was much larger than McCain's reported first-quarter donations of $12.5 million and surprisingly close to the $26 million Clinton unveiled on Sunday.

McCain and Clinton could take another hit later this week when Democrat Barack Obama is expected to grab the spotlight by announcing he has raised more than $20 million, sources say. The Obama camp said it couldn't yet release its figures for the first quarter, which ended Saturday, because the finance team is still counting cash raised at 5,000 house parties on the last day.

The first-quarter reports have taken on added meaning this cycle after the candidates set out to cement their front-runner status -- and California and other big states began moving up expensive primaries. In the end, these reports may not be so telling. Phil Gramm was the leading Republican money raiser in 1995's first quarter, and Democrat John Edwards was in 2003, and neither won the nomination. In contrast, Al Gore and George Bush were the money leaders in 1999, and they both did go on to the general.

"This is the first lap in the money primary, but there are many more laps to come. The second and third quarters are just as important as the first because nobody put so much money on the board to run an entire primary," said Jack Oliver, former finance chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

In addition to the front-runner blues, the first-quarter reports reflect high energy among Democratic activists and a slump among Republicans. Even without Obama's total, the Democratic candidates combined raised $65 million in the first three months of this year compared with $50 million by the major Republicans. In addition to McCain and Romney, Republican poll-front-runner Rudy Giuliani announced that he'd raised $15 million, $10 million of which came in during March.

"There's less cash out there than people realize, especially on the Republican side. And people like (former Bush finance chairman) Mercer Reynolds are saying, 'Hold on, hold on,' until the field clears up," said one top Romney fundraiser.

McCain's camp blamed his lackluster report on the senator's relatively late official entry into the race and his attention to Senate business, particularly the war in Iraq. But Campaign manager Terry Nelson acknowledged that the campaign "had hoped" to do better.

"We are already in the process of taking the necessary steps to ensure fundraising success moving forward," he added. According to a McCain aide, the Arizona senator has asked former representative Tom Loeffler and former senator Gramm to restructure the finance operation.

McCain's stumble comes at a treacherous time because he has slipped in the polls as his courtship of his party's conservative base appears to have stalled. He had recruited the lion's share of Bush's big-name fundraisers, but his risk now is that activists and donors will throw their support behind one of his better-financed rivals.

On the Democratic side, Clinton also suffered some dents in her armor.

Her campaign news release noted that 50,000 donors had given to her campaign; Obama's Web site already touts the fact that more than 83,000 donors have given to him.

The Clinton camp highlighted the $4 million she raised on the Internet, but that number seemed less impressive when Edwards reported that of the $14 million he has raised, more than $3 million of it came in online.

And there are big questions the Clinton campaign has yet to answer that could further erode her stature.

How much of her money must be set aside and held for the general election?

Clinton was the first major candidate to announce that she would be raising checks for both the primary and general elections, at $2,300 for each cycle. Federal law forbids her from spending the general election cash during the primary. But she can lump the amounts together in announcing her total quarter fundraising, which she did. That means her total for the primary race may drop a few million, once a full accounting of her first-quarter finances is released in mid-April.

How much is she spending to run her operation?

In 2003, Sen. John Kerry spent $2 million in the first quarter, and that was at a time when the presidential primary still slumbered through the first quarter. This year, the campaign timetable has been accelerated, and Clinton has been recruiting her party's top-flight aides and consultants in Washington and beyond.

High overhead could allow thriftier opponents to stay competitive, even if they don't have as much cash. That was the case in last year's congressional elections, when House and Senate Democrats hoarded cash throughout the year and wound up having more to spend in the final, critical two months.

To be sure, Clinton still holds key advantages.

The transfer of about $10 million from her Senate account brought her grand total for the quarter to $36 million -- just a million shy of the entire amount Al Gore raised for his 2000 presidential bid. That means she will have more money than any of the candidates to open offices and recruit staff in the critical early primary states.

And in this year's hyped-up expectations game, Clinton also accomplished what she needed to do most: She went into the first-quarter deadline on top of the polls and came out of it with more money banked than anybody else.

"It's a presidential campaign, and there is a lot of competition for these dollars and a lot of effort is being made by all of the campaigns," said Clinton's spokesman, Phil Singer. "Of course, they will all raise a lot of money."

posted April 04, 2007 07:31 PM            

Senior editor Dan Gilgoff gives us this quick take on Obama's $25 million fundraising total for the first quarter of 2007, which Obama just announced.

News this morning that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has raked in $25 million in the first quarter of 2007--just $1 million less than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and more than any other Democratic or Republican presidential candidate--does much more than solidify Obama as a formidable White House hopeful who is living up to the hype that has surrounded his candidacy. Perhaps just as important, it undermines one of the central pillars of Clinton's argument that she should be the Democrats' next presidential nominee: that she can give the GOP the best run for its money.

posted April 04, 2007 08:21 PM            

Obama probably out raised Hillary...for the primary campaign.

Since Hillary has filed to not accept matching federal funds for the election campaign, she was able to receive a double hit of $2300 per each cycle..primary and presidential election campaign. Those who gave her $4600 cannot give her another penny even if she turns out to be the democrat nominee.

Obama on the other hand did not file the same form and is undecided about whether he will accept matching federal funds if he is the democrat nominee. That means ALL his campaign donations were for the primary contest.

If Hillary deducted the extra $2300 per donator she already received, Obama would probably be the clear winner.

Another interesting fact is that Hillary had just about 50,000 individual donors and Obama had more than 80,000..this article, I just saw says 100,000....and that Obama out raised Hillary for the Primary.

posted April 09, 2007 11:06 AM            

Democrats appear to be gaining the upper hand in the all-important dash for cash ahead of the 2008 US presidential elections, unveiling war chests already well-stuffed with wads of money.

Together the top six hopefuls chasing the Democratic Party nomination have raised some 65 million dollars in the first quarter of the year, compared with 50.5 million in the rival Republican ranks.

The figures would seem to be overturning tradition, which holds that the Republicans are wealthier, better organized and normally rake in larger donations.

In fact, the disparities are not as wide as they might seem at first glance.

During the 2004 campaign, George W. Bush, who went on to win a second term in office, pulled in some 270 million dollars, while his Democrat opponent John Kerry fell just slightly short at 235 million.

"The perception that Republicans are so much more skilled at fundraising is inaccurate," said political expert Costas Panagopoulos from Fordham University.

During the last campaign, Democrat Howard Dean launched into the primaries bolstered by a record amount of funds at his disposal, most of which he had collected via the Internet.

Since then, others have been quick to copy his methods, with potential candidates honing their Web skills either to push their message or to appeal for funds.

Public opposition to the Bush administration and to the war in Iraq is also helping to pump cash into Democrat campaigns.

"The Democrats are capitalizing on their electoral victories in 2006 as well as an unpopular Republican president fighting an unpopular war," said Panagopopulos.

"The combination of these forces are creating fertile ground for the Democrats to raise substantial amounts of money."

The differences between the two camps also reflects the current opinion polls, with Bush's ratings having sunk to their lowest levels ever.

Only a third of all Americans approve of his performance in office, and fewer still believe the war in Iraq can be won.

It is therefore hardly surprising that fewer Americans want to see a Republican candidate returned to the White House, with none of the leading Republican hopefuls having denounced the war.

Instead hundreds of thousands are opening their checkbooks for the Democrats, with frontrunner Hillary Clinton saying she won donations from 50,000 supporters, second-place Barack Obama claiming 100,000 individual donations and John Edwards 40,000.

For his part, Republican hopeful John McCain said he had amassed funds from 60,000 people.

"It's a high stakes, high stimulus election ... there's excitement, enthusiasm," said Panagopoulos.

But some observers are quietly worried about the record, almost obscene funds, squirreled away in just three months.

On Thursday the influential New York Times denounced "the tastelessness of the race," while the Washington Post said the unparalleled system was "unpleasant for candidates and unhealthy for democracy."

Some insiders have gone so far as to allege that the Edwards campaign has kept all the expressions of sympathy sent to his wife, Elizabeth, over the return of her cancer, so he can use the addresses at a later date.

Candidates have been quick to point out however that they are not being bought up by big businesses with special interests to defend.

Edwards' campaign said 80 percent of his supporters had made sent in less than 100 dollars, while Obama said some of his donations were as little as five dollars.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070408224801.t8faks1e&show_article=1

posted April 09, 2007 04:00 PM            

OBAMA PHOTO CAUSES CONTROVERSY
Mon Apr 09 2007 14:39:38 ET

It's being called the equivalent of a paparazzi gotcha:

A snapshot of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and his chief political/media adviser David Axelrod -- taken in the Senator’s Capitol Hill office!

ROLL CALL reports: Congressional ethics rules forbid the use of federal office space for political and campaign activity.

A spokeswoman for the Obama camp declined comment to the paper.

Obama and Axelrod are old buddies whose relationship dates back years and they could have been having an innocuous conversation, one strategist noted. But it does raise some flags, which is the last thing a contender in a competitive race with a polished, practiced vet such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) wants to do. “It could be seen as a rookie mistake,” the consultant said.

ROLL CALL's Emily Heil jabs: And as any Hollywood star or starlet could tell you, if you’re going to make a mistake, make sure there aren’t any cameras around.

posted April 12, 2007 04:00 PM            

Mara Copeland talked on MySpace with Bill and Hillary Clinton and thought she was developing a political dialogue with the power couple.

Then she found out what the Clintons were really after: "They just wanted money,” said the San Leandro, Calif., woman. "It just seems like a big scheme to me. I was hurt – insulted and hurt.”

Copeland’s experience shows how the Clintons are using MySpace to develop relationships for cash.

Copeland told the San Leandro Times that she exchanged "personal” e-mails with Bill and Hillary and with former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who supports Hillary in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Then Copeland received an e-mail from Hillary’s campaign manager, saying it was urgent that Mara sent money by midnight that night. An e-mail from Vilsack said the same thing.

"I told them I couldn’t send money because my husband suffered a diabetic coma and we live on a fixed income,” Copeland said. "But we would be wiling to support her in any other way.

"Within two minutes, they told me to ‘unsubscribe.’”

Clinton raised a record $26 million in contributions during the first quarter of this year.

"Hillary said she wants to have an open discussion with the people. But after that it’s just money, money, money,” Copeland added.