Hillary Clinton breaks fundraising record: raises $10 MILLION in one week

[DeepModem Mom]

NY Daily News: Hil shakes money tree for $10M
Big-bucks week a record, leaves Dem foes in dollar daze
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Monday, March 26th 2007

WASHINGTON - In a political season already marked by phenomenal fund-raising, Hillary Clinton has hit a new high, raking in more than $10 million in just one week.

The old record for raising ridiculous amounts of money - for the entire first three months of a campaign - was set in 2004 by John Edwards, when he led all Democrats with $7.4 million.

Clinton topped that with just three events that raised $8.5 million by themselves, capped by a star-spangled soiree on Saturday for 660 at the home of Beverly Hills billionaire Ron Burkle.

"It was a lot of work, but it was worth it," said Clinton's California finance maven, Sim Farar.

Farar ran the Burkle bash, which sources told the Daily News raised $2.7 million. That was on the heels of a $2.7 million take in Washington on Tuesday and a $3.1 million night in New York on March 18, both headlined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

She picked up an additional $1 million yesterday at fund-raisers in San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Add in a string of "small" events in the past few days in places like Cincinnati, Las Vegas and San Diego, and Hillary Clinton handily cracks $10 million in just eight days....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/03/26/2007-03-26_hil_shakes_money_tree_for_10m_-2.html

[Skinner]

1. Day-um!

Unfreakingbelievable.

[Deep13]

2. Jesus!

Well, she doesn't support ending the war. She doesn't want meaningful health care reform. With that kind of money, it is hard to believe she is free from influence peddling. Yet, because of the huge amounts of cash she is raising and the early mass primaries, we are going to be stuck with her.

[paulk]

6. back up your claims

vis a vis the war and health care.

you're posting a lot of crap lately.

[William769]

10. Tis the season.

You usually get the same shit from the same people.

[Deep13]

17. see post 16

[Deep13]

16. Back up YOUR claim.

I'm relying on her own comments. Find them yourself.

[rinsd]

24. You accused her of influence peddling. Back it up or retract it (nt)

[Flabbergasted]

25. Here is to whom she is influenced

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00000019

[rinsd]

29. Fundraising is not influence peddling

I would hardly call Kucinich an influence peddler for labor even though they are his top contributors.

Show me a quid pro quo.

[Flabbergasted]

30. Yes it is....They're not giving her money because she has a nice haircut.

[rinsd]

33. Oh please.

Is Dennis selling his Congressional influence to various labor orgs?

[Flabbergasted]

34. He will work for them which is exactly what he should be doing. Hillary will work for whom?

I support Labor and the Middle Class which is exactly what democrats should do and precisely the opposite of what Hillary is doing.

[rinsd]

38. BS, you do Dennis no favors

Unions support Dennis because he votes in a pro-labor manner not because they call him and say support this legislation.

The same with Hillary. You may not agree with her views but to imply they are for sale is wrong.

[Flabbergasted]

46. So in other words Corporations support Hillary because she votes in an pro-corporate manner

not because they call her and say support this legislation?

[rinsd]

49. Certainly a reasonable critique.

But to imply any of our Democratic candidates is for sale is just plain wrong.

[Deep13]

35. She's being peddled, not doing the peddling.

There does not need to be a quid pro quo, but only and expectation of future consideration, or at least a hope of it. I know what she is doing is 100% legal. The issue is not that some people (most so far Republicans) break the law, but rather what sort of corrupt practices the law allows.

When KC raises $10M in one day, then I will be concerned about him too.

[Deep13]

32. No. Read it again.

I said it is hard to believe she is free from it. The reason it is hard to believe is because big donors don't part with their money for the hell of it.

[rinsd]

36. Oh I see. You don't even have to courage to stand by your insult.

"
The reason it is hard to believe is because big donors don't part with their money for the hell of it."

Hey if you have some evidence that Clinton has supported legislation of her donors uncritically, then by all means post it.

[Deep13]

37. Huh? Insult? Am I not allowed to be critical of public candidates...

...without it being personal? I am I on the O'Reilly show? I was describing how it looks to an outside observer. If I thought she was being bribed, I would definitely say so. You need not worry about that. In the meantime, I will not permit you to put all-or-nothing words in my mouth.

[laugle]

67. You know it's assumptions

like this that create the kind of bad blood that will ensure a dem failure in 2008!!

Wealthy people give large sums and other people give what they can to their favored candidates. That's the way it is......

Instead of making assumptions of impropriety, maybe you should work towards election reforms.....that would be alot more productive.

[Deep13]

80. I don't think it would be as productive as nominating ...

... a viable candidate who actually supports Democratic ideas. Besides you have no idea what I am working on. Anyway, I'm relying on what came out of her own mouth. The only assumption I am using is that she means what she says.

[paulk]

51. you posted the (unsupported) accusations

you back them up.

You post her comments and explain how they justify your accusations...

It's your credibility that's at stake, not mine.

[Deep13]

55. I expressed an opinion about a public matter.

You responded with an underhanded and as of yet unexplained personal remark. I don't respond well to personal insults.

[paulk]

57. you can't expect to post opinions,

especially inflammatory ones, and not get challenged on them.

---------------

[Deep13]

79. see post 55

[Flabbergasted]

22. There is really no evidence at all that she wants to end the war.

I doubt you can find any meaningful statements by her that could really be construed as: "we made a mistake to enter Iraq in the first place, that we need to pull out completely as soon as is feasible, that Iran is really not the threat that she, the DLC, and the media want you to believe it is."

She is offering almost nothing of substance regarding health care accept vain meaningless sentences. She will offer the same plan as in 93 which specifically catered to the insurance industry and in fact would put even more power into their hands.

If you can find anything at all, then please share?

[ShortnFiery]

71. Money Changes Everything!

And don't forget "Money is GOD" and "Greed is Good." :eyes:

Stop mussing up HRC or else "The Big Dog" will tear you to shreds ... in between Mistresses. :rofl:

[NJCher]

78. Kiplinger Reports

Says she is the "business" candidate.



Cher

[Gloria]

3. The more she raises the further away I get from her......

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Why?

Is poverty a virtue in modern politics?

[Flabbergasted]

27. No, PAC contributions indicate corporate ownership. But you know that already.

HILLARY CLINTON: CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 2000)
Top Contributors
1 Citigroup Inc $315,260
2 Goldman Sachs $268,260
3 Time Warner $222,290
4 JP Morgan Chase & Co $175,075
5 Metropolitan Life $167,350
6 Credit Suisse Group $161,150
7 Corning Inc $156,250
8 Skadden, Arps et al $154,380
9 Morgan Stanley $146,460
10 Viacom Inc $138,435
11 Cablevision Systems $135,250
12 International Profit Assoc $129,400
13 Ernst & Young $126,375
14 Kushner Companies $119,000
15 Kirkland & Ellis $117,850
16 New York Life Insurance $106,750
17 Walt Disney Co $103,755
18 Patton Boggs $101,638
19 Sullivan & Cromwell $94,350
20 General Electric $94,055

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00000019

[juno jones]

63. Hmmm

Time-Warner...Viacom...Cablevision...Disney...GE... Well we know which way the media will swing...Oh and Murdoch. Why does that fail to cheer me up?

[tularetom]

4. It ain't gonna be enough to get her elected

ALL the republicans hate her, as do half the independents and probably 40% of the Dems. Probably 60% of the electorate will not vote for her in a general election, and while she might squeak out a plurality in a crowded Democratic primary field, she is unelectable in the general.

Personally I can't stand her. Her weaselly stances on practically every issue she's asked to deal with indicate a real lack of principles. But if she is the nominee of the Democratic party I will vote for her. I'm just afraid she can't do it.

[William769]

11. I am proud to say some of that is mine!

Go Hillary, go!

[laugle]

68. Whom do you think can win and why??

[madfloridian]

5. My relative got it right.

He is a Republican, fed up with Bush. But he said Hillary is running to appeal to their party more than to Democrats.

Kind of sad.

That's a lot of money. I remember two days at least that Dean raised close to a million each day.

But it did not give him the presidency.

Inevitability is not always a good thing.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1136

[Lerkfish]

7. the only source mentioned was Norman Lear. I wonder who the other millionaires are.

:shrug:

since these are called "small" events, that means the number of people was small, but their donations were very large.

I'm happy for her, but I'm suspicious that such large donations from small groups of people do not come without strings.

I'd much prefer ALL candidates got their funds from grass roots donations. But I'm a dreamer that way.

[jwirr]

8. Well that does not sould like a Paul Wellstone virtue to me. I want

to know who her backers are.

[spooky3]

9. I want all of our Dem candidates to raise a lot of money.

Ultimately, their visibility gives them more strength to defeat the Republicans.

[RiverStone]

12. Al Gore could do that in 1 weekend!

Even with a Fall entry.

The tidal wave of funds that would pore into Gore's campaign would be unprecedented , IMHO...

Of course, there is this little detail left to resolve - Al needs to decide he wants to go for it! :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Was he able to raise money that quickly last time he ran?

:shrug:

If not, how did you come to your conclusion?

[Deep13]

21. Now the country knows better?

:shrug:

[RiverStone]

48. It would be quicker this time...

My conclusions Freddie are based simply on the powder keg of enthusiasm which would explode should Gore make a late entry. Also, in part - I base them on the wisdom of political operatives that see Gore having a chance to win even if he jumps in as late as this September or October. See example here (from last month - Politico):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2891.html

[Omaha Steve]

59. Democrats woke up after loosing the 00 election

The reason Kerry raised so much money in 04 was because we Democrats learned from our 00 mistake. We hated W "The Great Uniter" so much, we had lots of $ for any Democrat with a good following in 04. Even when Gore needed funds for legal help after the 00 election, we didn't come to him with hand fulls of $. Marta and I kicked into act blue in a big way for 06 for candidates across the country btw. We have learned from our 00 mistake. There will be lots of $ raised from here on out.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Gore took matching funds when he ran, probably not a smart idea

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Good for her!

It's gonna take a lot of money to win this.

[nolabels]

82. And probably not good for poor people

The dialectic in it all is astounding, corporate oligarch is in the process of selecting her yet no one seems to have noticed very much :shrug:

If this actually was a plural democracy I would need to shoot myself because the contradictions would be too great for me to handle :crazy:


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lists.ee.ethz.

[Marie26]

18. Hillary will be the nominee

The primaries are also totally front-loaded this year. I'm not even sure I'll vote for her, but she looks unstoppable for the Democratic nomination.

[AshevilleGuy]

73. If Gore stays out, she will be the nominee.

It's all going ahead on schedule. Barring Gore's entry or some volcanic screwup by her, she will be the nominee. But not the winner in November.

[Clark2008]

19. Why can't we have fund raisers to fund national health care accounts,

help single parents make ends meet because there AREN'T better-paying jobs out there, or pay down the national debt.

It's ridiculous that millionaires will give this much money to a candidates but not a real cause.

[Deep13]

20. Jesus, tell me about it.

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

23. so much for trying to get the money out of politics

which is the only hope we have of resotring democracy to this country . . .

[Tellurian]

26. What good would it be for us to get our money out of politics..

when the republicans will be shoveling it in by the truckloads-
we have to match them and beat them at their own game!

[Deep13]

39. These are contributions for the primary.

The general is Federally funded. I guess she must think that $75M will not be enough since she intends to opt out.

[Tellurian]

58. K&R

[damntexdem]

28. Big Money is deserting the GOP ...

and gravitating to the DLC.

And it's still big money for pols who will serve Big Money.

[Tellurian]

31. The GOP relys on Corporate CEO's for their $$$ ahem...donations

[ProudDad]

65. As does Hillary

Corporate CEO's are complete whores and will pay whoever delivers the goods -- usually the "party" in power.

Where do you think the hundred of millions of dollars Hillary's raising are coming from. The janitors?

[Czolgosz]

40. God, I wish HRC was raising money for Dennis Kucinich!

And Dennis was raising all the money for HRC's campaign.

P.S. As I now concluded all my snarky comments about Hillary: "YES, I will fully support her in the general election if she gets the nomination but for now I will work as hard as possible to make sure she doesn't get the nomination."

[Tellurian]

42. The debates are the decisive factor for many fence sitters..

No matter the winner...it just doesn't make sense to send in a weak candidate against the GOPstoppers.
Our candidates have plenty of time to forge ahead, where it could turn out to be anybody's guess as to the outcome.

It all depends on how badly a candidate wants the nomination, and how hard they are willing to work to earn it!

[Czolgosz]

45. Neither the ability to debate well nor the ability to raise heaps of funds corresponds well with the

ability to govern well.

Maybe a good debater has a slight advantage in governing, but a good fund raiser seems almost at a disadvantage in becoming good at governing.

P.S. YES I will fully support Hillary if she gets the nomination no matter how much I hope Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich gets the nomination instead.

[Tellurian]

88. Thanks, Czolgosz

The P.S., is your most important declaration, Czolgosz, because of it's intrinsic value. Thank You!

[caledesi]

41. Money can't buy you love! (Obama fan) NT

[ProSense]

43. This article is spin.

...three events that raised $8.5 million by themselves, capped by a star-spangled soiree on Saturday for 660 at the home of Beverly Hills billionaire Ron Burkle.

Three events, one with 660 people $8.5 million---so a few people put up the max amount. Hillary is holding a series of big donor, big money events that always yeild big sums. Edwards didn't set a record, so there was no record to break. Also, there is no correlation between how he raised funds and how Clinton is doing it. She had an Internet drive that raised $1 million in a week, which indicates that she may not be able to duplicate the big money efforts in grassroots support as was done here, here and here.

[churchofreality]

44. Unlike you haters, I actually would like to win the presidency

Instead of losing "gracefully" or whatever it is you want out of this. Hillary will win. Get on the wagon or lose.

[Deep13]

50. False premise.

Are "we" winning if HRC wins? She won't end the war (said so) and she doesn't support national health care. She's an unabashed APAIC Zionist with all that that means. Just what she would do for the middle or lower classes remains to be seen. Just what she would do to reverse the creeping of power towards the executive also remains to be seen. At this point I really don't see much distinction between her and Guilliani, McCain or Lieberman (expect McC. is anti-abortion).

The other thing is that national polls show that most people already have a pretty clear opinion of her and that with positives and negatives, she just about breaks even. Maybe she can move mountains, but that does not mean she can win Ohio, Penna, Wisc. or FL.

[Forkboy]

52. Well,thank God we got you special ones to save us all from ourselves!

:patriot:

[FiveGoodMen]

54. She's got more enemies than friends. She won't win. She'll give the WH to another puke.

[populistdriven]

60. KICK!

hill is deeply despised by many dems - not me but many i know would rather vote for a pug

[Larkspur]

47. And I'm proud to say that I did not contribute to her campaign

She can rake in the big money, but she won't get my vote.

[Nutmegger]

53. The best democracy money can buy.

:woohoo:

[Clarkie1]

56. It would will be a tragic day for America if money determined the outcome of every race.

I'm not buying it.

[Colobo]

74. It already does...

It makes me feel worthless.

[Clarkie1]

85. Not every race.

For example, the California 11th congressional district was won by a Democrat against a much better funded Republican opponent. People power still works sometimes if the people really work at it.

[w4rma]

61. Sick. (nt)

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Jesus, people. I could USE some of that cash. Send it my way.

Criminey. Two kids in college, hubby's territory cut back to the bone and me with the secrets of Peyton place, just waiting for a moment of security to spill the beans. Why give the money to someone who already has it? How redundant.

[ProudDad]

64. This is sooooo fuckin' sick

I don't think we can count on Hillary to push for Public Financing of Elections any time soon...

http://www.just6dollars.org/

[laugle]

66. Go Hill and Bill the "DYNAMIC DUO" 2008!!!

[IndianaGreen]

69. The selling of the Presidency

I doubt if any of those donors share the same values as the poor, the workers, the peasants, and the indigenous peoples of Latin America, the very same people that will be hurt by the neoliberal policies of a Clinton Administration.

[bvar22]

70. Some people call them "The RICH",

Hillary calls them Her Base.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Colobo]

72. Edwards, Obama, Richardson are wasting their times

Right?

[AshevilleGuy]

75. It has to be discouraging for them

especially Bill Richardson; he must be running for VP. But what I can't get is, there is Bill Clinton, who is probably the best political strategist and genius of all - does he really think that his wife could beat a ticket like Giuliani/Thompson??? He is indeed between a rock and hard place this time!!!

[fuzzyball]

77. You go girl.......................yee haw!

Madam president has a nice ring to it.

[RestoreGore]

81. Wow, just think of all the hungry Americans that could have fed

Instead it will go to ads, polls that mean nothing, and making deals to be paid off later. Toxic is surely the word to describe it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. Power brokers placing their bets

This is just a reflection of the influential crowd placing bets for later payoff.
Simple CW on who the next likely president is.

[Radical Activist]

84. Howard Dean raised the most money last time.

It didn't win him the nomination either. Hillary's campaign will spiral downward after she comes in 3rd or 4th place in Iowa, which she will.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

86. eh, we know that you always hark upon Howard Dean

when you have the chance. So, I would take Radical Activist comment with a grain of salt.

[Radical Activist]

90. Is something about my comment incorrect?

He had the most money and he didn't win. The person with the most money does not always win. His campaign also suffered badly when he lost Iowa because he was the media-declared front runner. Hillary will have the same problem. Its a valid and relevant point.

[smalll]

87. But Howard Dean was not a Democratic establishment front-runner -

he was an insurgent. Sure he raised a lot of money (on the internet) and sure he led in a lot of pre-Iowa polls, but he was never "that guy" or Mr. Inevitable. Hillary IS that consensus, Democratic establishment candidate. And not that "Democratic establishment" is necessarily a bad thing - it just means the weight and numbers of the regular party really.

I see her getting the nomination. She's a Walter Mondale. A Mondale who can WIN in the general election, in my opinion. Keep in mind, whoever the Repubs pick, she won't be running against Ronald "Saint" Reagan, world-historical figure and all-around nice guy. Not by a long shot.

I know ONE ad from 1984 that could be profitably re-run at some time, not on youtube or what have you, but actually on TV. At the right time, after a few more debates, with Obama nipping at her heels while being his own youthful, charismatic self and saying nothing very much but saying it beautifully, Hillary could re-run ol' Clara Peller - "Where's the Beef?"

That one sunk Hart, Obama has his own bovine flesh delivery issues, plus, it would be a self-consciously "retro" political ad. Could Hillary claim some hipness points for that? It's hard to keep up with how those are awarded.

[Radical Activist]

91. I don't know about that.

Dean had a lot of Democratic establishment endorsements by the time the Iowa caucus happened. And he was the media-declared front runner for months. Dean did do a lot of internet fundraising but he had a lot of big money support as well. Employees of media giant AOL/Time Werner were his biggest contributor through most of the early primary. He had the image of an insurgent but it was more image than anything else.

I see Hillary as a Hubert Humphrey. She came to the peace side too late. She'll divide the Democratic Party. Since she is the front runner it will hurt her more to lose in Iowa, which she will.

That Obama attack won't amount to much considering he already wrote a book about his views and he'll make more substantive policy statements, as he already has. In fact, I think it would be very easy to turn that attack back around on a candidate who is too careful about pleasing the middle to say anything controversial.

[Lone_Wolf]

89. I wonder how much of that money is from ordinary people

and not corporate donations, bundled donations, etc.