http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04 -04T152018Z_01_N04354262_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-OBAMA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

President
Hillary
CLINTON!!!!

Don't scare me like that.
However, your choice of colour for her last name is appropriate.

Herb

Check out this from our favorite pancake flippin presidential hopeful.....then ask do you really want this person in charge of our country:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2N8JDMX6qFg

Obama kicks some early fund raising ass!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040400989_ pf.html

Maybe good news for Herb?

The Hilary obsession continues...

"Maybe good news for Herb?"

Definitely. I like Mr. Obama a whole lot better.

Herbert M. Nixon III

It only gets better!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=3008821&page=1

Now we're talking!

Herb

Howard Dean had everyone beat in fundraising by January 2004. Folks, the fundraising thing means little at this point. This is another example of the media desperate to write a story about nothing. It's just hype. A non-story.

As long as you have enough money to be in the race (meaning, Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson at this point on the Dems side), it's still anyone's race. The fact that one candidate claims to have double the amount of money raised over a rival means nothing right now.

Andrew

I guess the gloves are really going to come off now, eh, Herb?

Andrew

I do have a new theory on this. I'm thinking, the Republicans would much rather run against Hilary than Obama. Hilary is a "known". Obama is an "unknown". And this intial fundraising boom, while early, is definitely meaningful. The Repubs pretty well know they can beat Hilary. They have no idea what will happen against Obama. You watch; the Right-wing pundits will spend many hours of airtime dissing Obama now. They want to run against Hilary.

If I were a Republican candidate, I'd want to run against Hillary not Obama or Edwards for sure. Karl Rove apparently really wanted to run against Howard Dean not John Kerry; the Republican campaign people were a little worried about him at first. But, they sort of expected Kerry to run a decent campaign. Had he done so all the way through, Kerry surely would have won, considering how close he came anyway.

Andrew

Andrew is right - Howard Dean was the Democratic great hope this time four years ago, and he stepped on his unit in pretty short order and shot his chances down. Mitt Romney is leading the GOP in fundraising at this point as pointed out in that thread, doesn't mean he's going to win the nomination.

The Republicans are hoping and praying right now that Hillary gets the nod, because they can shoot holes through her campaign no problem. I'm guessing she wouldn't have the coat of teflon like her husband did.

I pray Hillary does not run.
She is way smarter than Mr. Clinton, just not as slick.
My hope is that voters see through her.

Herb

The thing is, most voters are already decided about Hillary. I think she would be a vulnerable candidate in a 2-candidate race, but it depends who her Republican opponent would be, what kind of campaign he'd run, etc. Would he be approving the same kinds of Karl Rove smear campaigns Bush used?

Andrew