The NYT has an article about how the Clinton campaign appears to have mismanaged its finances. The more I read it, though, it appears Senator Obama spent more, but since he also raised more funds and is winning, he appears to be off the hook. Jim Jordan, a one-time Kerry campaign manager, says as much at the end of the article.
However, there are a couple of differences between the Clinton and Obama campaigns:
1. The Obama campaign was better prepared for post-Feb 5 races, and also organized well in caucus states. Grass-roots support has been crucial to Senator Obama's success.
2. Mark Penn, Senator Clinton's strategist and pollster, has raked in about $10 million so far. For the Obama campaign, David Axelrod and four polling firms together have collected ~$4 million.
Well, we definitely know who's getting the most bang for the buck!
In an interview with Texas Monthly, Senator Clinton says Texas doesn't factor into a Democratic winning strategy, unlike... Florida and Michigan! So if recent trends hold and Senator Obama wins Texas, will this be Senator Clinton's new excuse?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Senator Clinton's campaign finances - and Texas excuse?
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment