Hillary raises $26m in first quarter

According to the Hotline, Hillary just announced her Q1 numbers.  In addition to the $10m she transferred in, Hillary raised $26m this quarter.  The campaign spokesman did not say how much of that is for the general and how much was for the primary, but said that there was "considerably more" primary money than general election money.

Peter Daou said that $4.2m of the money raised was online, with $600k coming in during the final push.

Update: Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chair, says he "expects Sen Obama will have a comparative amount."  If that is true, that would be huge news, given that Hillary was expected to far exceed everyone else.  Of course, with such a statement coming from the Clinton campaign, it is most likely just setting expectations.

•  hmmmmmmmmm

  This is a very down the middle number for the Clinton campaign since they own the wallets and bank accournts of every loyalist Clinton scumbag in the world.

  by ConnecticutDigsEdwards on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:22:30 AM PDT

  •  You guys are out in force today, aren't you?

    by Plutonium Page on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:23:59 AM PDT

  •  Go Ahead Bash Clinton

    People that are trashing him now are the first that want him to campaign for their candidates. 2006 election: Clinton was the GOTV savior. 2006: Clinton idolized for standing up to Faux News. 2007: He's an evil scumbag.

    by owl06 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:23 AM PDT

•  Trying to be impartial, but there's something

  obscene and distasteful about her fundraising strategy.  I don't have a candidate and it makes me think a lot of undecideds are going to have an unfavorable response to her Q1 numbers.  Who wants to be forced to go along with this?  It has the feel of being bullied by the rich kid on the school playground.  How can that be good?

  by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:23:13 AM PDT

  •  The number is going to be comparable to Obama's

    Actually, according to her press release 80% of the contributions were $100 or less.

    by PhillyGuy03 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:28:34 AM PDT

    •  Then it must be the personality thing. I wish

      the things her supporters say about her were true, and it all turned out wonderful, but I'm from the Chicago suburbs, similar age, education, and so it's a not a question of she's not like me, she's the Other, not a natural choice for me.  I just don't like watching her or listening to her.  That's apparently not an uncommon reaction.  

      by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:02 AM PDT

      •  but what about

        where she stands on the issues?  Alot of people vote on who they "got a good feeling from" (Bush=guy you can have a beer with) or just don't vote for people they "can't connect with=Gore a little too 'stiff'", I think those are idiotic reasons to vote OR not vote for someone...

        we need to stop deciding who we FEEL best about (Obama was everyone's hero when he gave a good speech, but now he's caved when reality strikes)... experience, and where politicians stand on the issues, is what people need to go for.

        I find that many people who are a part of 'netroots' feel like they need to LIKE the person (personally), its irrelevant, if the person has the country's best interests at heart, the right stance on the issues, and if they're the most experienced person for the job.

        by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:43 AM PDT

        •  Sorry, but that's a big problem. I'm waiting to

          see some conviction.  She puts out calculated positions.  Yeah, yeah, they all do.  Weighing lists of policy declarations is a losing game.  People use their gut to an extent because they very well know it's anybody's guess what legislation makes it out of committee, or what events derail proposals.  Experienced voters are like any other group of experienced decision makers, they match patterns and pick a candidate.  Only beginners are forced slog through policy permutations and combinations trying to guess who would be best.

          She's just a bad package and, no, I don't care to have a beer with any of them.  Eeeeew!  If she can close the sale, I'll be happy to volunteer every weekend to get her elected.  I'm for my country.  I see any of the current or likely Dems being better for it than any of the GOPers.

          by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:49:45 AM PDT

          •  well I'm glad

            that you're open minded about supporting her if she wins the primary, I've read comments by some people here who threaten to vote green or not at all if she wins the nomination, which baffles me.  I hope you get what you want in your candidate, a Democrat in office would be great not only for your country, but for many of us around the world, who would like to see America take a role again in leading by example, when it comes to responsible government.  (We Canadians loved Clinton and Gore, so its hard for us not to get nostalgic). :)

            by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:55:52 AM PDT

            •  I moved to Iowa to do the first round and suport

              here is universally pretty soft, although the Dem bosses are heavily for Edwards, runs in the 40s.  It had to start early, with a failed Presidency and no incumbents, but...people are following without really deciding.  They're dating, but they aren't ready to get hitched.  I'm wondering if Clark will come in, start of a new money quarter, and gain real traction, and if Gore will fear by fall the GOP could beat the Dem frontrunner, and get in to protect his climate initiatives.

              I'd rather have either of them, guys who have been around the block on foreign policy and executive duties.  But I'm a pragmatist.  No interest in falling in love with the candidate whatsoever.  I just a Dem White House and I want my country back, and our place in the world.  If we aren't out there doing the right things, how will they get done?

              by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:56 PM PDT

•  That's Hill-dog for you :)

  you have to admit, her campaign is one organized MACHINE.... getting things done is usually a good trait, I say more power to her...

  by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:24:58 AM PDT

  •  An Organized Machine

    That can take on the GOP.

    by owl06 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:35:58 AM PDT

  •  but she failed, miserably

    she was expected to raise 30-40 million
    Clinton, Obama, McCain Play Expectations Game Over Fundraising

    Campaign-finance experts and political operatives say each candidate must meet certain benchmarks in this round. New York Senator Clinton, the Democratic front-runner in polls, may report at least $30 million and perhaps as much as $40 million.

    by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:48:13 AM PDT

    •  you think those numbers are a

      miserable failure?  I'm pretty sure there are plenty of candidates (democrats OR republican) who would not consider that a miserable failure... expectations are ALWAYS inflated before a campaign across the board, its to drum up support... I don't think its a failure, but that's just me.

      by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:50:53 AM PDT

      •  i think its a failure to put out numbers and fail

        to meet them, thats all. Obama exceeded his expectations and Hillary failed to meet hers. This is a disaster in my opinion cause her people keep talking about how she is the establisment candidate, how shes going to steamroll this puppy dog, Obama and instead she got steamrolled.

        by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:58:52 AM PDT

        •  fair enough :)

          I understand your point, Obama did raise alot of money, I guess we'll see though, in the end how the money aspect is going to pan out for either one of them..  I think by "establishment" candidate, she's got that title over Obama and Edwards simply because of her experience etc. but again, I see your point.

          by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:04:05 PM PDT

    •  Story Corrected

      They now say she raised $36 million.  

      by hilltopper on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:01:33 PM PDT

•  but, but, she only raised $241.00

  from ActBlue; such a massive disconnect, ain't it? ;)

  by PhillyGal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:25:33 AM PDT

•  Clinton's can't buy anymore votes

  The Clintons can't buy anymore votes with thier money since her name id is basically 100%.

  Only half the country wouldn't vote her because she's the everything to everyone candidate. Progressives hate her and so don't hardline republicans. That is a pretty shitty position to be durring both a primary and general election.

  Clinton/Vilsack: two DLC moneygrubbing scumbags.

  by ConnecticutDigsEdwards on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:26:25 AM PDT

  •  so

    do you really have any point to this diary other than to just trash another democrat?  I mean I get that you support Edwards, but I hardly think he'd want the kind of mud-slinging you're engaging in here.... you're going to have to come up with something a little more ingenious than "moneygrubbing scumbags" to add to any intelligent conversation...at least, I would hope.

    by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:21 AM PDT

    •  I meant to this comment...

      I said "diary" when I meant comment....

      by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:23 AM PDT

•  HOTLINE SAYS OBAMA HIT 21 MILLION PLLUS

  Clinton hit 26 million
  Obama hit 21 million

  Rumors have it Edwards hit 15 million.

  We have a three man dog race.

  by ConnecticutDigsEdwards on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

  •  Obama just crashed and burned

    See the front page.

    by theyrereal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

  •  Obama just proved himself

    Clinton is dead on arrival now

    by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:49:02 AM PDT

    •  Huh? What kind of logic is that?

      by PhillyGuy03 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:59:28 AM PDT

•  We need a People's Candidate

  that we can get behind and fund.

  We don't have one yet.

  Obama just did a major Kamikaze onto the deck of the U.S.S. Bush.

  So he's out.

  I'm pretty disgusted that there's nobody out there to get excited about.  300 million people in this country, pretty much a lock on a win for the Dems in 08, and this is what we get served?  

  Ugh.

  Where's Gore?  It's time for him to jump in.

  by theyrereal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:32:34 AM PDT

•  A good reason to make a donation to Edwards n/t

  by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:34:40 AM PDT

•  Edwardses still going on TV with the breast thing

  The Cancer story apparently has legs. Still

  by wuod kwatch on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:38:39 AM PDT

  •  The breast thing?

    I'm sure you didn't mean this like it sounds.  Right?

    by dkmich on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:39:46 AM PDT

  •  My husband died young. There were 400 people at

    his funeral that Saturday.  The following Monday, they all went back to work and went on with their lives.  Everything, however, changed for my children and me.  But he wasn't running for President.  

    Yes, the Edwards' are going to need to give us some information about what happens next, you idiot.

    by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:31:21 PM PDT

    •  S/he/it was channeling Coulter or Limbaugh

      I can't believe people would make such cynical and hurtful statements.  It is such a window into one's own soul.

      by dkmich on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:49:18 PM PDT

  •  w. kwatch still going on without the brain thing

    Yes.  Cancer stories have legs.  Millions of them. And they have arms and they have hearts and they have souls.

    You could probably learn a lot from a Cancer story.

    by Wayneman on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:06:47 PM PDT

    •  So the cancer thing will now replace "policy"

      Talk?

      Lots of folks live with chronic illnesses and maladies.
      They dont parade on TV and talk about it ad neuseum. What more could be learned from these TV appearances (GMA, nightline etc) that is not already out there? Wasnt the press conference and 60min enough?

      Yes they already said the campaign will go on.
      Yes they already said they will not give in to the disease.
      Yes they have said that they are lucky they have health insurance and can afford cutting edge expensive treatments.
      Yes they have said that the disease is treatable if not curable.

      What else is new here?

      Is this the only way of getting on free TV?

      by wuod kwatch on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:43:33 PM PDT

•  What is with the negativity?

  Three points: (1) We have several good candidates running for president, not just three (2) I don't know who I am going to back, but hearing Democrats trashing other Democrats doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about our prospects for '08 (3) I went to a presentation by Joe Trippi in NH in late '03 in which all he talked about was how much money Dean was going to raise. It was gross, he didn't talk about issues, just about Dean's ability to raise money.
  So, can we talk about issues, and not about money, but not in attack mode, please?

  by nascardem on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:40:34 AM PDT

•  Mloney

  is what she has going for her. I hope she is NOT the nominee because I am with the crowd who finds her triangulation not to my liking, her stance on the Iraq War and War in general too flimsy, and her candidacy might just unite the now torn, falling apart at the seams, Republicans. They will come out of the woodwork and in bus loads to vote AGAINST her.
  I hope I am wrong. But that is my fear.

  I also dread more rehash and debate over her husband's sexual behavior. That is something I hoped everyday would fade into history.
  Alas, it looks about to rear its ugly head and people are talking about it all the time now.

  But having said that, I finally understand Hillary supporters after what Charlie Rangel said on MTP. I do not agree with them but I understand them. He said something to the effect that she had 8 years experience in the WH!! What? I guess that means she was the Co President to many, I am not buying it. But I now understand why they like her...they find her to be an extension of the Clinton Presidency.

  Frankly, I was not a big fan of the Clinton Presidency so I cannot get into that frame of mind.

  Granted next to Bush, Clinton is FDR, Truman and Thomas Jefferson. But then any President is the best President when matched against Bush. Hell any rogue dictator might be more capable than Bush as those are his heroes anyway.

  by wishingwell on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM PDT

  •  hmm

    "dread more rehash and debate over her husband's sexual behavior"?  That's like saying, "some idiots are going to say she's not going to be a good president because she's a woman".... there is no point worrying/being constantly afraid of the GOP's slimy tactics, they have plenty of slime to go around for ANY candidate... they've hit Edwards with the "pretty boy" meme already, does that mean we count him out because they have a way to make him look like a "wuss" and therefore no good as a war-time president?

    All I'm saying is, start to drop the nonsense at the side, about what they might attack, and just focus on who will attack back best.... she's no shrinking violet, don't count her out with the conservative "mom vote" either....

    by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:46:35 AM PDT

    •  pretty boy

      is quite a bit different than philandering husband. Now Rudy makes Bill Clinton look like a saint as he and his wife admit they have an affair while he was still married. This would be like Bill marrying Monica.

      But having said, that I do not want to go back to the Clinton era as those years are gone. And I want a more Progressive President as well.

      by wishingwell on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:56:20 AM PDT

      •  well that's fair enough

        "I want a more Progressive President as well.", I don't know, I guess I had always seen Hillary Clinton back during the Clinton years as a progressive (universal health care initiative etc).  I just think that she's given a really bad rap on this site, I don't think she's as center-left as some here believe, I think she's been a very sharp strategist, and I think that if she were in office and in control, we'd see alot more "progression" out of Hillary Clinton than some of the other candidates running...

        by hopefulcanadian on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:00:13 PM PDT

        •  She's worked hard, been smart. I wish her well.

          I wish them all well.  One of them is going to get a lot of free labor out of me pretty soon.  She could certainly still convince me.  They all have talking points that don't work for me.  Her 8 years in the White House is one of them.  Yes, I watched my big brother ride his bike, too, but when I got on the bike myself, it was quite a bit different than watching.

          by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:16:40 PM PDT

•  Hillary's camp must be in panic mode

  what a disaster on her part. how could she not at least lap Obama?

  by Dour on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:46:53 AM PDT

  •  You are not making any sense

    She had a record breaking first season, raising more money than any of her competitors.

    She has also shown the breadth of her supporting with 80% of her donations less than $100.

    by PhillyGuy03 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:04:30 PM PDT

•  CORRECTION: $36 Million

  Hotline has run a correction from the AP, stating that the number is $36 million, not $26 million.  I infer there was some confusion about her $10 million transfer.  

  http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

  Speaking of that $10 million, that's one of my big beefs against her -- unwilling to spend it to help take the house and senate in 2006.    

  by hilltopper on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:00:32 PM PDT

  •  The correction is misleading

    She's "reporting $36m" for the quarter, but $10m of that is transferred money.  She actually "raised" $26m.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

    by Fran for Dean on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

  •  I think 26 million is correct

    She raised 26 million in the first quarter. 10 million was transferred from last year.  

    by jj32 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:03:35 PM PDT

    •  Confusing

      Yeah, her press release sure looks like it is $26 million in the new quarter.  Maybe the $36 million is post-release spin.  I'm confused.  

      by hilltopper on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:07:46 PM PDT

•  disgusting

  the amount of money spent in elections is really at a disgusting level.

  this isn't so much directed at hil as it is the process, cause i know the name of the game is money.

  but that is the worst single factor we could ever use to find a good representative of the people!

  by Stampy51 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:03:26 PM PDT

  •  This was my response as well

    All this talk about who raised how much and what it means for their candidacy is so depressing it makes me even more strongly feel we need campaign finance reform among other things.

    by anastasia p on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:52 PM PDT

•  Any news on the Republicans fundraising

  I've not heard a single word about the republicans.  Any news?

  by arogue7 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

  •  McCain is trying to lower expectations. nt

    by venatrix on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:06:48 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the latest fundraising news

  I believe that some people thought that Sen. Clinton would raise $50 million this quarter. I'm not sure where I got that number from though, so maybe I'm way off base with that quoted figure.

  Still $26 million is an impressive number. I just question whether Sen. Clinton or any of the other candidates can keep up this fundraising momentum. Are we still going to see these high figures towards the end of the year?  There's only so much money that people can give, even wealthy people. There's only so much bundling that wealthy people can do.

  Perhaps I'm wrong but I just can't see this phenomenon continuing at this pace into next year.....

  by ademption on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:14:57 PM PDT

•  very interesting...imo, advantage, Obama

  Obama: 83,351 Donors, $22+ Million
  Clinton: 50,000 Donors, $26 Million

  by kck on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:01:17 PM PDT