http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569/A_DATE_C00431569.html
This is from her filing


April 23, 2008 1,738,154.61
April 24, 2008 2,578,730.28
April 25, 2008 787,048.99




This is now a serious problem. They are lying to the party to their own supporters and to people who cannot afford to give extra money.



This is their day by day receipts

April 01, 2008 71,418.79
April 02, 2008 189,854.92
April 03, 2008 186,973.37
April 04, 2008 179,922.87
April 05, 2008 286,461.84
April 06, 2008 122,374.03
April 07, 2008 274,365.92
April 08, 2008 320,460.76
April 09, 2008 584,038.49
April 10, 2008 439,132.42
April 11, 2008 149,963.19
April 12, 2008 182,003.61
April 13, 2008 54,795.14
April 14, 2008 127,429.04
April 15, 2008 330,311.65
April 16, 2008 591,464.93
April 17, 2008 347,865.51
April 18, 2008 400,893.35
April 19, 2008 102,681.44
April 20, 2008 58,556.17
April 21, 2008 133,441.71
April 22, 2008 226,294.60
April 23, 2008 1,738,154.61
April 24, 2008 2,578,730.28
April 25, 2008 787,048.99
April 26, 2008 314,722.71
April 27, 2008 126,573.57
April 28, 2008 203,280.36
April 29, 2008 432,857.69
April 30, 2008 9,504,619.08


http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569.html

Plus on receipts how much is really for the primary??

ELECTION SUM
NO ELECTION WAS SUPPLIED 7,466,272.73
General 2008 657,740.40
Primary 2008 12,922,677.91



http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569/A_ELECTION_C00431569.html

On edit almost 1/2 of the money was raised in Washington DC

District of Columbia 7,709,576.28

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569/A_STATE_C00431569.html

So I think 4/24 was seven days long.

SS Minnow of presidential campaigns:crazy:

what do you think is up with that?

Nothing special


last month

March 31, 2008 8,525,621.13

but what exactly does this "clearing" typically represent?

I'll put my cards on the table- I very much want you to be right because I loathe her at this point- but I want to make sure you're right.

If clearing means tallying up unaccounted for totals, and she has that number for 4/30, couldn't it mean that they had stuff that banked for 2.5 on 4/24, but that there was more money pledged that only cleared days later?

My cards look just like yours;)

and then a playstation 3

in debt....... She's number 1, she's number 1


I think we ought to do a DU thing for that kid and embarrass
Bill Clinton.

They had one hell of a fund raising day, or she loaned herself some money.

:shrug:

I hadn't gotten that far into the report yet. :wow:

Receipts 21 million (26 total in the report includes another 5 million loan) vs. Disbursements 28 million.

Not the picture of a winning or even sustainable campaign. I sure wouldn't want to be one of the little guys who put up goods or services along the way.

:shrug:

Facts is facts.

..

The Clinton campaign lied to you.


But cognitive dissonance will not allow you to accept it.

Reading a balance sheet is hard work!

:P

You just need to know how to read the accounting statements. A few people have been jumping to conclusions and mistakenly adding her personal loans onto her debt, when in fact they're included in that. Not everyone knows how to read the data, it helps if you have a spreadsheet open.

You like being lied to.

In fact you support it.

So no whining when you get lied to. In fact, you need to celebrate it.

Just like the bush supporters, you are human. You hate to be informed of the truth, because it contradicts your view of the world. So you attempt to divert, you attempt to rationalize, and you attempt the "everybody was doing it" defense, and you attempt to discount the information because you believe the messenger is somehow at fault.

No, Dan Rather isn't the problem.

The problem is that the Clinton campaign will lie if they feel it will help them. This is just another of many examples.

If their lips are moving. :(

They do it a lot in print too.

For this latest reporting period:

Hillary Clinton

District of Columbia $7,709,576.28

Barack Obama

District of Columbia $582,482.17

Wow. Nice catch, Tatiana.

"Hard working white Americans support me" :eyes:

They are literally keeping her in this race to try to sink Obama.

It's disheartening how much power these people wield.

the people aren't in her corner.

When she voted to support the IWR and lied about why.

Excellent work.

:)

...if you count the disenfranchised potential donators across Europe and Asia.

so if she got the $10 mil, shouldn't her debt be only $9 mil?

:shrug:
rocknation

I've been waiting for these figgers....

I KNEW the 10 mil was a lie...and the rest is like the postmortem: A manual on how not to run a campaign....

Are they in these numbers?

because technically, she doesn't have to pay them back.

:headbang:
rocknation

Is that just contributions?

I realize the loans aren't included in her debts, though the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if she paid herself back first, those poor vendors can fend for themselves.

This is absolutely infuriating. THe poster who compared this to Enron was right on. This is BEYOND the pale.

Would the pledged amount be reported then or on receipt?

i.e. Are we looking at the credit card donations on April 23 and then the checks rolling in on April 30?

Just an idea.

The campaign made the point that this was actual receipts and not just money pledged.

with snakes like Wolfson and McCauliffe, you need to drive a spike through them and into the ground. I want to be sure there's no wiggle room.

Btw, I responded to you in another thread with a link that you were asking for wrt ozark"dem".

almost 1/2 from Washington DC


the idea that they are receiving massive amounts of money from normal people is a sham.

How is it possible to get so much money from "individual donors" in DC?

It is time someone stood up to these powerful interests.

lot more unspecified location $$.

When you have to specify your employment?

And where are Obama's "unspecified donations" dumped? It's definitely not Chicago.

Gah! This is so confusing.

ELECTION SUM
NO ELECTION WAS SUPPLIED 7,466,272.73
General 2008 657,740.40
Primary 2008 12,922,677.91



http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569/A_ELECTION_C00431569.html

Is "no election was supplied" primary money or general? I'm guessing general, considering the low amount there, but all of those combined still don't equal her supposed "cash on hand".

This is the sort of thing that has distanced and hardened people as long as I have been following politics. Its easy to joke about, but there is no excuse for an absolute public lie. No real representative of the people of this country would condone it. Hillary relies upon our stupidity.

Let's see if she fesses up and apologizes for a bald-faced lie.

When will the dlc get it into their greedy heads that the neocons aren't cuttin' it anymore? I'm so sorry their ugly heads are exploding over losing to the Peeps.

:shrug:

These numbers are making my brain hurt.

there's another thread here lying about her being 30 million in debt.

Obama fans lie. A lot.

Clinton supporters lie about Obama having called anyone a racist. Constantly.

be even more to the point now.

I had a feeling when this came out that it wasn't even close. "$10 million just sounded better to them. Like Bosnia Sniper Fire just sounded better. Thinking.. Not supporting NAFTA would just sound better to the voters she hoped to rope into her scheme..

I feel sorry for the ones who believe hilary.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the Washington DC establishment. They are putting their money where their mouth is.

Consider who is running to change Washington and the DC establishment and give the people more of a voice in government.

thanks

man that should be the story what a sham trying to make it look like they were picking up all this money from across the country.

are donating to Obama. California has been his biggest donor for some time now. He raised almost $4 million from Cali this reporting period.

Can you say buyer's remorse? The DC socialites and true elitists are trying to force a Clinton candidacy on us.

Of course I had to check that out.

He got a nice chunk of change from my zip code as well.

:thumbsup:

UNITED STATE FED GOV 250.00
UNITED STATES (DEP'T. OF AGR.) 500.00
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 928.00
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 100.00
UNITED STATES ARMY 807.75
UNITED STATES ARMY, INSTALLATION MANAG 500.00
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE 250.00
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 500.00
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MONTA 250.00
UNITED STATES COURTS 250.00
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 250.00
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 589.27
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI 275.00
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 150.00
UNITED STATES DRESSAGE FEDERATION 55.00
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTU 20.00
UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS 25.00
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 2,515.00
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 100.00
UNITED STATES JUDICIARY 50.00
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 354.48

What am I missing here?

Is EVERYONE in DC contributing to her campaign? If so, why the hell didn't they vote for her?

Some little bullshit fine, I'm sure. :eyes:

But then again that was probably the case already, except for the inevitable 20%r's that even * has.

The exact quote was "on track". If you raise $1.25 million in 3 hours, then you are "on track" to raise $10 million in 24 hours. As a practical matter though, a 24 hour period is not likely to equal 8 times the total of the best three hours. There's a big block of time, say from 10 PM to 7 AM when most people are sleeping, getting ready to sleep, waking up, taking a shower, and having breakfast, getting dressed for work. Then there's another block of time from 7:30 to 5:30 when most people are working or commuting to work. Granted, there is a 3 hour spread between time zones as well as variations in people's work shifts and sleeping times, but there is still bound to be some fairly dead hours.

And I say that as an Obama supporter.

We went through the same thing a month ago. The numbers reported on a particular day are not reflective of when the money was donated. Its reflective of when it was reported. That's why Obama's campaign report shows over $12 million on April 1 -- they didn't get all of that pledged on that one day, they simply reported it on that day. Same thing for HRC -- you can't determine when she actually received donations from when they're reported.

Moreover, the fact that DC is listed as the location of many of the donation is, again, a quirk of how the reports are filed. Obama, in April, reported over $12 million as coming from "no state reported". HRC has a very small no state reported, but a large DC donation. I guarantee that reflects how they report the money, not where its from.

This thread should die the death it deserves.

people who can't read a statement are spouting a lot of bullshit. Just like the other thread saying she's 31 million in debt.

It's embarrassing.

I really think that's supposed to reflect the donor's address.

If it reflected, for example, the state of the candidate's headquarters, shouldn't we expect Obama to have an enormous number of donations coming from IL? He actually had just $1,000,000 or so coming from there. And Hillary's headquarters is based out of Virginia, isn't it?

I'm really curious about how these reports work.

On MSNBC just now, top Hillary adviser Terry McAuliffe claimed that by the end of today, the Hillary campaign will have raised $10 million since she was declared winner yesterday.


The previous month they raised roughly 20 million for the entire month and did so again this month.

Regardless of the day that the money was collected the idea that $ 10 million in a 24 hour period is a farce.

The other part of the farce is that they continue the illusion that there was a spontaneous reaction across the country to their web stie. Roughtly 40% of the entire amount was raised from Washington DC.

And if you believe that 40 percent of HRC's money came from DC, then could you explain how HRC could have less than $6000 reported as "no state" while Obama has $12 million "no state reported" donations?

I'd love to hear your explanation.

you may be the last remaining person on the planet that thinks that Baghdad Bob Terry McAulliff has any credibility at all.



It is absurd to believe that the Clinton campaign took in $ 10 million in spontaneous donations over the internet from the entire country when for the entire month they only took in $ 14 million from the 50 states (excluding their real bank - Washington DC)

Get a clue.

:popcorn:

If so, $5M of that $7M would be their's.

April 23, 2008 1,738,154.61
April 24, 2008 2,578,730.28

In response to your post about our post-PA fundraising, I wanted to help clarify any confusion. During the course of the 24 hours after the race was called for Sen. Clinton, the astonishing pace of contributions led to a series of updates in the press. If you look at the campaign's afternoon press release, Terry McAuliffe's $10 million figure was a projection of where we'd end up by the end of the day. However, the donor number he mentioned was the latest info he had at the time he was speaking to MSNBC, which was around midday. The sequence of updates was as follows: we were at $2.5 million the night of the election, over $3 million when Sen. Clinton went on the morning shows, $5 million before noon, and Terry McAuliffe projected out the rest of the day. The $10 million goal was then announced on the site late last night.
http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24493/the_clinton_obama_money_chase_continues

Although, the conclusion of the blogger is that she DID reach "post PA" donations in the amount of $10M.
Can you look into this?
Don't want to be spreading misinformation.

gOBama!

Lie to your supporters and claim bigger numbers.

Hillary is through in the Senate.
This is the end of her career.

Hillary's pathetic campaign is a sham, a shell game, a huge damn joke!

She's being funded by Washington insiders and her own money! buHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wheres all the money from the hard working white folks Hill???:rofl:

I'll tell you where it is, we gave to Obama!!! And we'll keep doing it till he whips McWar's ass in the GE!

"It is absurd to believe that the Clinton campaign took in $ 10 million in spontaneous donations over the internet from the entire country
when for the entire month they only took in $ 14 million from the 50 states (excluding their real bank - Washington DC)" (sic)

definitive proof that she did not, because a lot of people here may or may not know how to read them. I am not saying she did. I have no idea, but if she did lie about something this big then I am sure that the news media will pick this up the same way they did the Bosnia story.(On a side note I was very, very criticial of Hillary on this story and still am) If they do, then we will most likely know... and if not then it is probably another example of people trying everything in their power to tear her down.

It is the same as people who feel Obama lied about his knowledge regarding Rev Wright. We have no proof that he lied, some think he did, some think he did not, but until they have proof they shouldn't be saying anything.

I personally defended him over Rev. Wright thing by telling my parents that all politicians lie to some degree, that what is more in important is what they lie ABOUT rather than that they have told a half truth.

I feel like a lot of people here are trying to find something to call Hillary out on because I get the feeling some people merely dislike her for personal reasons. Which is sad.

A lot of people do not know how to read this, but are STILL trying to use it as proof to back up a claim just because they believe that claim must be true. That isn't the American way at all. Wait until there is proof before you shoot someone down. I think the mere fact that news heads such as KO or CM are not running with this is a sign. IF however, it gets picked up by mainstream media (not just one or two people with an agenda) then yes, it is probably true and you can go to town saying whatever you feel you need to say to make your candidates win seem bigger in your eyes.


By the way, I am supporting Obama in the GE and think he will make a fine candidate. This has nothing to do with him, but with certain people who seem to have an irrational hate of Hillary Clinton. As Bill Maher said. If you hate Hillary, it says nothing about her but does say a lot about YOU.

As you may have noticed, the people with their panties in a wad about the Clintons can make up an accusation against Hillary and then immediately believe it--rather like eating one's own turds.

They are merely flip sides of the same rusty coin.

I'm thrilled we Dems have kicked that shit to the curb. We're better than that.

Guess what, "a fighter" who consistently CHEATS to win, is NOT someone to admire. :thumbsdown:

vote for her.

Reminds me of Bush leadership.

McCauliff says the debt is no big deal.

"He added that the campaign will wait until after the last primaries on June 3 to address its debts.

“As many of you know, I’ve been involved in a lot of debt situations with the Clintons for a long time,” he said. “It’s never bothered us before, and it won’t bother us in the future.”

He also said Clinton hasn’t loaned her campaign any more money or talked about writing off the $11 million in previous loans as contributions: “She’s not focused on that.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/McAuliffe_Upgrading_April_not_insulted_by_20_million_figure.html


And this is someone that wants to be responsible for the fiscal health of our country? Not a great idea.

I don't want her camp to whine and complain about "slanted" media coverage. They don't talk about this out right LIE!

ditto.

:kick:

I deducted the $50 I donated to Obama that night specifically to help offset some of what she was trying to raise.