Well, she's gotten over $60 from me since 2/8, and I'm a first time donor.

So, I hope she keeps it up!

10 straight losses since 2/5.

It's an outstanding number.

However - it completely ignores the fact that raising money has NEVER been the Clinton Campaign's problem.

I mean - let's set aside that sure, they've now proven that they, too, can raise large sums online (not as much as Obama -- but second best to a mythological fundraising machine is still pretty darn impressive).

Great.

Even when the money was coming from thousand-dollar-a-plate dinners and maxed out donors -- it was still real money.  It was still in large, impressive amounts.

What you completely either miss or ignore is that RAISING money, however done, has never been a Clinton problem.

SPENDING IT WISELY has been the problem.

We have yet to see ANY evidence that they've learned otherwise (unless... will the call this afternoon announce that Penn is now working for free)... nor do we have any evidence that it isn't too late TO learn.

$35 million.  It definitely IS an astounding number.

That buys what.... 7 Mark Penn's?

Where'd all that money go? You can raise all the money in the world, but if it's not spent effectively, it doesn't matter (see: Howard Dean).

$35 million, is it primary money or general election money? Obama will go 50 million+

Instead of wasting all that money...why doesnt she give it to the poor rathr than giving a speech about poverty and then giving millions to her worthless staff.

35 million buys you 11 straight losses and a mansion in bel air for mark donuts penn

are they still going to complain they dont have enough money?

why do they need 1.9 million for another ad buy?

this has to be a record for most money spent while losing 11 straight

The $35 million is very misleading.  If recall correctly, she listed $7.5MM in debt at the end of January, excluding the $5MM loan. Her cash on hand, after deducting the $20MM reserved for the general election, was $9MM+ (including the $5MM loan).

In short, she was probably broke on February 5th. And is still carrying $12MM in debt (and whatever she owes Penn for this month as well).

$330 more to Obama in order to max out for the primary.  I'm expecting a $55 million+ month for him.

Bill Clinton has been saying at all of his campaign stops in Texas for Hillary the past few days that if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio that she will be the nominee - he is not saying winning by a big margin either.

His salemanship tone makes me believe that he is saying a win is a win no matter the delegate count and that the big states count for democratic wins in the general election. He might have a good point. Obama needs to win a large state other than just Illinois to be the outright nominee. Just my opinion. We will see how it turns out next week! It is an exciting election in Texas for a change.

Clinton so far has won most of the big Dem states like NY, CA, and NJ. Also, MI and FL will not be ignored either no matter what the DNC is saying now, which also went her way. However, if Obama wins TX and OH next week, none of that will matter. I do see the Clintons using this strategy if they do somehow win next week.

In Texas, Bill Clinton sounds like his old self. He sounds very positive and upbeat and in his element with it being nothing like S.C. He is at his best down here from what I have observed. A nice, postive change for Hillary!  Texas Democrats love the Clintons.  He is a real asset to Hillary in this state.  Do not count them out just yet as they have risen from the dead many, many times before!

I think it is a great thing that she had her best month of fundraising after she turned to asking her supporters for small donations.

One more nail in the coffin of corporate-owned politics.

What seems clear to me is that for most of the campaign, they have completely missed the boat on online fundraising.  Online fundraising by the Clinton campaign almost seemed like an afterthought.  The first priority was getting the big donors and amassing a large war chest.  There was no big push to solicit small donations online.  Only when that war chest had dried up, did they go to online fundraising as their main source of financing.

Contrast that to the Obama and Edwards campaigns that looked to small donors from the beginning.  Each of their campaigns were based on a grassroots building, expanding the Democratic Party model.  Clinton's campaign was always a top down model.

While I congratulate the Clinton campaign on their large online haul this month, my question to them is where the hell were you last year?  You totally blew a great opportunity.

Obama vastly outspending her in all the contest held since Feb. 5 suggests, as well as Texas and Ohio, suggests a big chunk of that is not primary money, but money she her presidential campaign will never get the chance to actually spend..

I think it's awesome that she's been raising so much from small donations and first time donors.  It's a testament to the excitement she's generating.  Go Hillary!!!

Heh.  I love how all the comments in this thread are: SO WHAT, SHE STILL SUCKS, essentially.  

The Clinton campaign has definitely made some missteps.  The Obama campaign has made much better use of the internet as a fundraising tool. I hope Mark Penn never appears on my television again, and never runs another campaign for a candidate I genuinely like.   But how about - at the least - admitting that that is a really impressive number, which demonstrates how deep Clinton's support really is?  

Why does anyone make insinuations about "debt service" or anything else?  HRC wants to be president.  She's not paying herself back first.   Obama: raised more money; and has major unions pumping ads into Ohio and Texas.  The only television ads I've seen have been Obama's SEIU-sponsored ads.  

Code Blue and NJ Politico84 quit hatting on HRC.  You both are so negative.  

I have a lot of questions about this figure, which would appear likely to be misleading in several respects:

1. Other websites are reporting $24 million for HRC. Smith at Politico has so far ignored requests from his readers asking him to explain the discrepancy.

2. It is well known that many Clinton donors are "maxed out" at $2,300 for the primary. Will the Clinton campaign disclose how much of this new figure is for the primary vs. the general election?

3. Does the figure include any loans to the campaign from Clinton herself or others?

4. Why is Clinton getting outspent 3- or 4-to-1 on ads in key states if she has so much money rolling in?

5. What is Clinton's total number of contributors and average contribution? I've heard the figures of $109 for Obama, who now has over $1,000,000 donors. Her numbers will surely be higher for the average donation and lower for the total number of donors.

Clinton is wasting Democratic party donations by continuing to push her failed campaign. There has not been a single election day so far where she won more delegates than Obama. She has lost eleven contests in a row. If this had happened to Obama, he would have either dropped out on his own or been hounded out by now.

I'm a little fuzzy on campaign finance laws (but so is McCain so i don't feel so bad), so can anyone tell me what the rules are for donating to a different candidate from the same party in the GE? What i mean is, let's say that a fair amount of Hillary's donor's are maxed out for the primary so they donate to her for the GE. If it turns out that she doesn't get the nomination, can those same donors then donate to Obama? And what happens to all that money she's set aside for the GE if she's not the nominee?

Regardless of what the money is going to, this is a great sign. Perhaps we can finally take back the money advantage from the GOP. We've got the message, we just need the cash.

Hudson, you obviously can't handle the truth, so go troll some where else. $35 million is the accurate number and is widely reported. Since you are a complete ass, I just donated another $100 to HRC in your honor.

Contribution Details
Date:     February 28, 2008 3:55 PM EST
Amount: $100.00

It's not even expected -- she's already earned 35. And, considering many of her supporters earn 70 cents on the dollar to BOs supports...well it just goes to show you how much we love Hillary.

When you read the comments on Hillary's site, so many bring tears to your eyes. There are so many people saying that they have nothing, but they are giving $10. when their paycheck arrives, because they believe in her that much.

Hillary is the first presidential candidate I'd ever voted for. Normally I volunteer my time, etc. but I feel so strongly about.  

I'm so sorry the scorched Earth supporters of Obama feel the need to come in and defecate on every positive Hillary diary.  So beautiful to see that your candidate inspires that kind of venom in you.

Even if you're an Obama supporter, like I am, this is good news for all Democrats. To the extent we can get more people involved in the campaigns, giving small donations, we're better off in the long run because it will reduce the influence of people that can give $2300 a pop.

The only question I have for the Clinton campaign is whey they didn't do this from the start?

With her new found wealth, Hillary should at least be able to afford a nice bender to end her campaign next Wednesday after Obama decimates her in Texas and Ohio.