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?