October 3, 2007 – New York (FYMP) – The New York Times, this morning, issued a de facto endorsement of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning. The affirmation came in the form of an informational article about the fund-raising efforts of candidates in the third quarter of this year. According to Patrick Healy, Ms. Clinton has stripped Barack Obama of “a crucial political advantage” and “depriv[ed] his campaign of the bragging rights that he was more popular with contributors despite Mrs. Clinton’s strong performance in opinion polls and televised debates.”
In a word, the momentum has turned.
This turn has occurred despite the fact that Barack Obama retains practically insurmountable leads in fund-raising and the enrollment of new donors. The New York Times concedes:
“Mr. Obama has raised more money than Mrs. Clinton over all for the 2008 primaries, $75 million to $63 million, and he cumulatively has 140,000 more new donors (those who had not given previously to his campaign.) Independent analysts said that his fund-raising had been impressive given that he was still new to the political scene compared with Mrs. Clinton, and that he had raised money at a good clip even though he had not improved markedly in national polls.”
Note the use of past tense in this paragraph. Mr. Healy appears to be announcing to the world that Mr. Obama’s campaign has reached its zenith. Contrast that with these depictions of the Clinton campaign:
“But the Clinton camp made sure to trumpet its fund-raising numbers to its best strategic advantage, releasing the figures just hours before Mr. Obama delivered a foreign policy address on the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing a possible invasion of Iraq.”
“The Clinton campaign revealed its fund-raising success in a way that sought maximum strategic impact. First, in recent weeks, some Clinton advisers and donors had depressed expectations for her third-quarter results, predicting that she would raise about $20 million while suggesting Mr. Obama would raise closer to $30 million.
Then, as Mr. Obama was announcing his fund-raising results on Monday, the Clinton campaign kept quiet because it did not want to share the news cycle with him, Clinton advisers say. As a final move, yesterday, the advisers said they deliberately tried to upstage Mr. Obama during his Iraq speech.
The advisers attributed the fund-raising results to a new focus on low-dollar events, which people can attend by donating $25, for example, instead $1,000 or more, which have been common at Clinton events. The campaign held 20 low-dollar events since July, compared with six from April to June.”
Today, according to Newsweek, Mr. Obama has supplanted Ms. Clinton as the candidate of choice in Iowa. Today, contributions and donors are still coming in at a good clip. Today, the fund-raising is as impressive as it was in June. Today, the junior senator from Illinois retains a sizeable dollar advantage over the darling of the machine.
Tomorrow, however, he will press on without the endorsement of the New York Times.