Obama raised $32 million in January, a number that his campaign has hardly been quiet about. The rumors I hear indicate that Clinton raised roughly $10 million, and the comparative silence from her side would seem to confirm a lower figure. If true, Feb. 5 becomes essential to her candidacy because the polling numbers are trending against her, in same cases dramatically.
Nonetheless, unless we see a SuperBowl-size upset, Obama will lose the total delegate count tomorrow. The Clintons enjoy massive institutional advantages, not the least of which is that they helped to set up this compressed campaign schedule.
According to Obama’s people, if Obama’s “loss” tomorrow is within 100 delegates, he’s in great shape because the remainder of the campaign schedule plays to his strengths. We shall see.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to discuss the primaries with a friend who’s in the pro-Clinton camp. His contention was that one should vote less for a candidate and more for the policy positions they advocate. As he agreed more with Hillary than Barak, he was pro-Clinton. Experience, trustworthiness, etc. were all secondary or tertiary considerations at best.
I (obviously) continue to disagree with him about some of this, but his point was well-taken as it relates to a Clinton v. McCain or, less likely, a Clinton v. Romney general election. As much as I might respect McCain as a man of integrity and honor, his policy positions regarding the Iraq war are about as wrong as I believe one can be. (Excepting of course the issue of torture.)
Here’s the trump card, though: The latest polling shows Clinton losing to McCain in a general election while Obama wins by seven points. Seeing as how Obama and Clinton policy positions are not wholly dissimilar, one can make a case that voting for Clinton is a very risky proposition for a Democrat.