Show Us Some Real Money, Hillary!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

Lets not start a flame war eh?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

The way I see it (my opinion of course) is that Hillary yesterday implied that Obama is trying to spend his way to victory, but then she declares her sudden surge in donations as something triumphant. The Clintons are notorious for raising copious amounts of money...remember back in November when she had a 'lock' on the nomination? No other candidate at that time could touch her in terms of money. She then went on and spent that money, copiously, on things like snow shovels and high priced advisers...and then her money quickly ran dry.

So, I have no doubt that her win in PA would bring in much needed into her campaign, but $10 million overnight? Seriously, that's more than Barack has ever been able to raise. I stand by what I said...it's smells fishy to me. Only time will tell.

She had debts of over $9M! She won PA & the boost in her campaign made her raise money. What's to judge? Why? Why are so you so negative now?

Perhaps we see what is happening differently, but to portray Obama's ability to raise more money than her and therefore spend more money than her as a negative but then boast of raising $10 million as a positive is a bit peculiar in my eyes. Secondly, $10 million in less than 24 hours is unheard of....she just broke a record if it's accurate which is why I'm skeptical that those numbers are that accurate, given that it is crucial for her supporters to not think she is in financial trouble.

[no name 1]

Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

The way I see it (my opinion of course) is that Hillary yesterday implied that Obama is trying to spend his way to victory, but then she declares her sudden surge in donations as something triumphant. The Clintons are notorious for raising copious amounts of money...remember back in November when she had a 'lock' on the nomination? No other candidate at that time could touch her in terms of money. She then went on and spent that money, copiously, on things like snow shovels and high priced advisers...and then her money quickly ran dry.

So, I have no doubt that her win in PA would bring in much needed into her campaign, but $10 million overnight? Seriously, that's more than Barack has ever been able to raise. I stand by what I said...it's smells fishy to me. Only time will tell.

She had debts of over $9M! She won PA & the boost in her campaign made her raise money. What's to judge? Why? Why are so you so negative now?

Perhaps we see what is happening differently, but to portray Obama's ability to raise more money than her and therefore spend more money than her as a negative but then boast of raising $10 million as a positive is a bit peculiar in my eyes. Secondly, $10 million in less than 24 hours is unheard of....she just broke a record if it's accurate which is why I'm skeptical that those numbers are that accurate, given that it is crucial for her supporters to not think she is in financial trouble.

And you have absolutely NO PROOF that is it fishy.

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

The way I see it (my opinion of course) is that Hillary yesterday implied that Obama is trying to spend his way to victory, but then she declares her sudden surge in donations as something triumphant. The Clintons are notorious for raising copious amounts of money...remember back in November when she had a 'lock' on the nomination? No other candidate at that time could touch her in terms of money. She then went on and spent that money, copiously, on things like snow shovels and high priced advisers...and then her money quickly ran dry.

So, I have no doubt that her win in PA would bring in much needed into her campaign, but $10 million overnight? Seriously, that's more than Barack has ever been able to raise. I stand by what I said...it's smells fishy to me. Only time will tell.

She had debts of over $9M! She won PA & the boost in her campaign made her raise money. What's to judge? Why? Why are so you so negative now?

Perhaps we see what is happening differently, but to portray Obama's ability to raise more money than her and therefore spend more money than her as a negative but then boast of raising $10 million as a positive is a bit peculiar in my eyes. Secondly, $10 million in less than 24 hours is unheard of....she just broke a record if it's accurate which is why I'm skeptical that those numbers are that accurate, given that it is crucial for her supporters to not think she is in financial trouble.

And you have absolutely NO PROOF that is it fishy.

very true, all conjecture at this point.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041502883.html

[no name 1]

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041502883.html

Raising money had nothing to do with your post. Your paranoia is frightening.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Clinton, who was strapped for cash going into Tuesday's contest against Barack Obama, started making fundraising pleas as soon as the race was called. She told supporters during her nationally televised victory speech to go to her Web site to send money.

She continued making the point the next day in Indianapolis, telling supporters she was being outspent by Obama and that she has to "hustle" to keep up. She urged them to go to the Internet to read about her positions on the issues.

"If you're so inclined, after you've done so, I would really welcome a contribution, because we are being outspent," Clinton said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/h...10_n_98428.html

.....

That's spinning it into oblivion. Obama's campaign has continuously outraised her which, if by her standards of proclaiming her $10 million overnight as something great, has done a tremendously successful job of raising money throughout the entire campaign...not just one blip. Hillary gambled her war chest of money on shovels and high priced advisers early on, because she thought she would have the nomination in the bag after Super Tuesday. She gambled and lost...but is now claiming to be the underdog as Obama's campaign has been able to continuously raise more money and therefore spend more money on campaigning. It's laughable to somehow try to convey this any other way.