Two shining moments

In politics, like everything else, both the things that grab the headlines and a flood of information can sometimes blind you to the telling details.

The big story Sunday was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign announcing they had raised more than $26 million in the first three months of 2007, shattering the previous record (which was around $8 million).

Buried in the story, however, was a key line--Clinton wasn't revealing how much of that money had been raised for her primary fight, and how much for the general election.

It's obviously an important distinction; mixing the two numbers is like telling someone your salary's $1 million... based on lumping together the next 10 years.

How about Barack Obama? He hasn't officially reported yet, but his campaign is leaking that he raised $20 million.

As Richard Baehr wrote in his Obama, not Hillary, won the 1st quarter fundraising derby post on American Thinker:

[G]o beneath the raw data and a different victor emerges.

Obama is the winner of fund raising first quarter race. He raised over 20 million, Hillary raised 26. But much of her money was in $4600 slices: 2300 for the primary election, 2300 for general election. Since she already announced that she will not take federal money for general election, she was free to collect money for both.

Obama has not decided yet whether to forgo public financing for the general election, so virtually all of his money is just for the primary, and he is limited to $2300 per donor.

Most analysts thought Hillary would raise 30-35 million and Obama 15-20 million. According to Drudge, Hillary found it necessary to transfer $10 million from her Senatorial Campaign Committee in order to pump up her total to $36 million.

Clearly, Obama has had an extraordinary rise and Hillary is worried.

I'd say Hillary is more than worried. Remember, the candidate who raises the most early doesn't always win--just ask Howard Dean about that.

However... Hillary had all the advantages coming in, and she's not someone who's got a lot of new people to tap into at this point. She's had years to cultivate donors; has 100% name recognition; has the support of tons of operatives and party officials; represents New York, where a giant percentage of the top donors live; has a big network in California, the other fundraising hub; and has hubby Bill's magic Rolodex to draw from.

They pulled out all the stops; and it didn't work. Heck, as the Times notes in its After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up piece:

Mr. Obama appears to have such a firm hold on so many of Chicago’s big donors that Mrs. Clinton, who grew up in a Chicago suburb, did not even have a fund-raiser here during the crucial first quarter of this year. ...

And Chicago has become almost completely an Obama town. Though Democrats here still express respect for Mrs. Clinton, "if she’s raising any money in Chicago, I don’t know who’s doing it," said Mr. Schmidt, the lawyer who was once co-chairman of President Clinton’s fund-raising here.

Ouch; if you can't get people to believe in you in your hometown, you're really in trouble, as Al Gore learned when he lost Tennessee to George W. Bush in 2000.

Rudy Giuliani's got the same problem as Hillary, except worse. Not only are things still coming out about his past, but he lost the first quarter fundraising race to Mitt Romney, who raised $20 million to his $15 million.

It seems insane that a man who raised $15 million in three months can be seen to be in trouble--but that's the way the game is played now, with the compressed primary calendar and spiraling arms race.

Looks like the Final Four's set for the presidential race; only question is whether Hillary and Rudy deserve their current #1 seeds.

AFP photos of Obama by Mannie Garcia, of Romney by Mandel Ngan.