|
By The Hill Editors
|
|
Posted: 10/03/07 07:16 PM [ET] |
There is a story circulating on the Web about warm weather in the Arctic thawing deep into the permafrost and causing landslides that will permanently change the landscapes of islands up on top of the world. Something like that has happened in the Democratic presidential race.
This newspaper carried a headline on Tuesday that read: “Obama $20M turns heads.” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had just reported raising $19 million in the third quarter for his primary challenge and a further $1 million for the general election.
Coming after several weeks during which pundits suggested that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was the inevitable nominee, the $20 million haul appeared to flip a finger at Washington’s doubters and say, “I’m still here and strong; you’d be a fool to write me off.” And indeed, Obama remains a force to be reckoned with.
But then came Clinton’s stellar numbers. On Tuesday, her campaign reported that she raised $27 million in the third quarter, of which $22 million was for the primary. Having been put in the shade by Obama’s fundraising in the first two quarters, Clinton came out with a crushing number that underscores the perspicacity of the recent punditry.
Clinton has managed to superheat her fundraising and is producing, if not yet a landslide, then certainly a change in the political landscape.
She overtook Obama as a fundraiser not because she found some new resources of energy and put in an extra effort; she has been working tirelessly for years. (This newspaper published a series of articles about her presidential money machine as far back as March 2003.) What has happened is that donors, who like giving to winning causes rather than to losing ones, have seen the polls and decided to bet on the former first lady.
Obama is going to have plenty of money to compete effectively throughout the primaries. The reason the financial news of the past couple of days is causing heartburn in his campaign is not that the candidate won’t be able to pay for all the ads and extensive ground game that he would like. He will.
The story of the money numbers has nothing to do with shortage or want. Rather, it is about domination. Clinton’s financial surge, overtaking Obama as the Iowa and New Hampshire contests draw near, is significant because it shows people putting their money on one horse rather than the other.
Donors have seen Obama failing to narrow Clinton’s lead despite his charisma and widespread appeal, and they are placing their bets accordingly. A million here, a million there, and you’re talking about serious money. |
