E.J. Dionne is one of the better columnists in the corporate media, but he asks a silly question:
So how did the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination come down to a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? We have become so accustomed to their pounding each other relentlessly that we’ve forgotten that this is a remarkable endgame.
And he then gives a long, well-considered answer about tactics and strategy and other irrelevancies.
You really want to know how it came down to this? Money. As I noted when John Edwards dropped out, this was the breakdown:
Hillary Clinton: Spent $40,472,775 On hand $50,463,013
Barack Obama: Spent $44,167,993 On hand $36,087,190
John Edwards: Spent $18,028,752 On hand $12,397,048
Here are the latest numbers:
Barack Obama: Spent $85,176,289 On hand $18,626,248
Hillary Clinton: Spent $80,353,785 On hand $37,947,874
Nothing at all remarkable, actually. Get it?
11 comments
Skip to comment form
But Gravel is still in the race! Gravel has spent nearly nothing and look at all the delegates he has to show for his money.
Because he’s racing and pacing and plotting the course,
He’s fighting and biting and riding on his horse.
He’s going the distance.
on spending??
She must be planning a huge media blitz or something, that is a lot on hand.
The traditional media said Hillary was inevitable and the media Proclaimed Obama to be a Rock Star!
Not, say, Sen. Dodd, with all his real life experience and his true progressive qualities or John Edwards with his populist platform that progressives have been clamoring for, almost literally dying for. All because the traditional media said Hillary was inevitable and the media crowned Obama the Rock Star.
Due to the inexhaustible amount of prime time coverage Hillary and Obama received, the money began flowing their way. Because the traditional media told everyone that Hillary was inevitable and Obama was the Rock Star.
Disgusting and truly disheartening, but true.
and not just with their feet.
The amount of money that Obama has raised in small amounts from hundreds of thousands of contributors is remarkable. It truly is a grassroots groundswell.
To a lesser degree, that’s also true of Clinton.
It’s not always true, but in this instance who raised and spent the most money equates to the candidates who had the most support.
I, for one, don’t see anything wrong with that.