October 2nd, 2007
04:23 PM ET
11 years ago

Clinton raises $27 million in third quarter

Clinton outpaced Obama in third quarter fundraising.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Hillary Clinton raised $27 million in the third quarter for her White House bid - all but $5 million can be spent on trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination, a Clinton aide tells CNN.

The aide also said that over 100,000 new donors contributed to the New York Democrat.

The haul is about $7 million more than Sen. Barack Obama brought in during the same period. Though when broken to dollars that can be spent in the primary race, the New York Democrat only outpaced Obama by $3 million.

On Clinton's Web site, Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle thanked supporters for the successful quarter and said their "dedication defied the skeptics."

"This is all thanks to you and your hard work," she wrote. "You - and over a million supporters like you - are working together with Hillary to create real momentum that will take us to victory."

Monday, the campaigns for Obama and former Sen. John Edwards announced their candidates had pulled in $20 million and $7 million, respectively.

Full story

Related: Obama raises at least $20 million in third quarter

Click here to see CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com

- CNN's Mark Preston and Alexander Mooney

Filed under: Hillary Clinton
soundoff (154 Responses)
  1. John Adkisson, Sacramento, California

    In a quarter in which every pundit and ill-informed reporter has crowned Clinton the presumptive nominee– in a quarter in which both Clintons have been allowed to dominate the media with their two-for-one punch - in a quarter in which all of the fat cats who contribute to "winners" should be flocking to the candidate they believe will be handing out the jobs in the new administration –OBAMA STILL ESSENTIALLY TIES CLINTON IN FUNDRAISING! He still remains the candidate who attracts the most donors, has the most resources banked, and the most volunteers at rallies. That's the story morning glory!

    October 2, 2007 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  2. Ed,Ellenville,New York

    Ben-99% of right-wingers in NY,which is a rapidly shrinking minority. She's here so leave! I'd suggest a red state but they'd get pissed,nobody wants you.

    October 2, 2007 11:42 am at 11:42 am |
  3. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Dan in TX.:

    The Iran resolution is NON-BINDING. It contains NO AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE. So, now you can choose between someone who trusted George Bush when he lied to the country, but is at least on the record for that vote, and someone who runs like a rabbit from the tough calls. (Presidents don't get to do that you know.) Or, I suppose you could vote for John – I'm not going disarm unilaterally in the money race unless I raise practically nothing in which case I'm for public financing on principle as long as the Republicans do it too – Edwards.

    October 2, 2007 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  4. Julian, Wisconsin

    Personally, I don't understand how any American can be a strong Hillary Clinton supporter. That's like being a strong Al Gore supporter in the 2000 Primary. Or a strong John Kerry supporter in the 2004 primary. Who are these poor people who love the old politics SO much?

    If George Bush attacks Iran, Hillary's campaign should be dissolved. She made an error in judgement on the biggest issue in her time in the Senate.. and when given another opportunity, she has made the SAME mistake.

    She's either willfully ignorant, or she's just dancing to the right and dancing to the left to try to expand her appeal.

    You think John Kerry was bad with his "I voted for the war before I voted against it"? Wait until the GOP starts running ads about Clinton being for the war, then against the war, then for the war again, then againt it again.

    To nominate Clinton would be a waste of one of the best opportunities the Democratic Party has had since 1992.

    October 2, 2007 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  5. Zack, NJ

    Voting for Hillary during a general election would be like voting for John Kerry. Same ol' just a different day. Last time I voted for Kerry. This time it will probably be 3rd party over her if Obama doesn't make it.

    And I noticed how Clinton waited until AFTER everyone else releases their #'s to release hers.

    October 2, 2007 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  6. Johnathan, Syracuse, New York

    Keep it going Hillary ! 😀

    October 2, 2007 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  7. ye

    cnn u mislead the people with your headlines.

    October 2, 2007 11:50 am at 11:50 am |
  8. Danny G. Boca Raton, FL

    Did she answer any questions? All I saw was a big tap-dance. No clear plans or visions and anything that required an impromptu response was met with the "I don't deal in hypoteticals" response

    So you rather have a candidate that will tell you that a year from now he/she would allow Israel to send missles into Iran as part of a pre-empty effort to take their nuclear capabilities, but you do however have a problem with her voting to declare the revolutionary guard "an extremist/terrorist" group that is been provend are directly involved in killing our soldiers... are you sure you watched? if you don't like her, fine you are entitled to, but make sure that your candidate will do the right things for America and that he/she will work to unite us, not to divide us. I believe she will do this, I believe she sees beyond blue and red, Sen. Obama wants a revolution, but as a result of it I'm afraid he is not going to unite but further divide us into it... vote for whoever you want, just vote! I'm happy with my vote, you be happy with yours, in the end we should all be a little more united and if the next president does that we will all be a little better for it.

    October 2, 2007 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  9. Jessica R Fairfax, A


    Finally, we need a REAL man in the White House

    October 2, 2007 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  10. S. Scott


    Obama Primary Dollars: $75 Million
    Clinton Primary Dollars: $62 Million

    GO OBAMA!!!

    October 2, 2007 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  11. Linda, Chandler AZ

    Please....not another Clinton in the White House. This woman is NOT a leader. She followed the pack in giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and now she appears to be just as willing to invade Iran. If people continue to ignore these things and she gets the nomination, you will rue the day – she WON'T WIN! There is no way Hillary wins the general. Her nomination will incite the Republican base in a way never seen before. She is BAD for the Democrats and BAD for our country. And, by the way, how much of that money was from lobbyists and PAC's?

    October 2, 2007 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm |
  12. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Dan in TX.

    You are wrong about Sen. Clinton effectively voting to authorize war in Iran. She voted for a non-binding resolution asking the Bush Administration to brand the Quds Force as a terrorist organization (which they've already "effectively" done). There is no authorization of force in the Resolution. But if Sen. Obama was against this, he should've stayed in the Senate and voted thusly instead of RUNNING LIKE A RABBIT.

    October 2, 2007 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  13. Conservative James, Phoenix AZ

    QUESTION: Would you care if your candidate were receiving illegal funds? (ie China)


    Who is giving money? How much are they giving? How are they giving (special interest fundraisers, etc)?

    Until our political system mandates transparency of ALL candidates' donations – the wealthy elite will contiue buying elections.

    Hillary isn't raising these dollars. The "Clinton Machine", DNC, Special Interests, Hollywood Elite, Wealthy Socialists (Soros & co) – they are buying this election. In 2004 (Soros & Co) gave $78 million towards electing democrat John Kerry for Presidency ... more than the US Government's federal matching funds.

    Keep cheering, though – those controlling the strings enjoy a good show.

    October 2, 2007 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  14. Julian, Wisconsin

    Danny G. Boca Raton, FL.

    Regardless of what must be done about Iran in the future, I'd just prefer that Mrs. Clinton not give George Bush another blank check to use whatever means Dick Cheney thinks necessary.

    And I think it's incredibly ironic that one would claim Clinton, one of the most divisive individuals in politics.. (next to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly) as a possible unifier. If Clinton is nominated it will be one of the ugliest partisan general election campaigns in U.S. history, and it will leave the nation more divided than 2000.

    At least we know Obama has a chance to carry a large number of those American voters who are only slightly right of the center.

    October 2, 2007 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  15. dawn _- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Does anybody know what percentage of Sen. Obama's $19M came from "small donors"?

    October 2, 2007 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  16. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    Contributions to Shrillary remind me of this paraphrase of a Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits lyric: "Money for nothing, but this chick's not free."

    October 2, 2007 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |

    I can't believe that the only reason why most people support Obama is because he wasn't in the Senate to vote on a war that he probably would have voted on if you look at his war funding record. YES HILLARY VOTED for the war–get over it!! Let's look at this scenario Obama supporters. If Hillary would not have voted for the war what would Obama have to run on?

    Obama always retreats back to the same old "I was againts the war" position each time someone calls him on the fact that he consistently makes foreign policy blunders like saying we should go into a Muslim SOVEREIGN NUCLEAR WEAPONS HOLDING Pakistan guns blazing to find UBL. Or saying that our troops are performing illegal air raids killing civilians in Afghanistan which there has been no evidence to support that ever happening.

    I wish Obama supporters would wake up and realize that it is them that are being hoodwinked by the right wing. Truthfully they know that if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination their chances of winning the Presidency are very slim. She has them scared. If you think the slime job that they did and are preparing to do on Hillary is bad, wait to you see what they have in store for Obama if he wins.

    The bottom line is people really don't know why they don't like Hillary. They are just holding onto all the old slime that the Republicans smeared her with when her and her husband were in the White House. She is not that bad of a person or a candidate. I really wish that people would stop holding her vote to go into Iraq against her because no matter what she voted for only PRESIDENT BUSH HAD THE AUTHORITY to authorize enforcement of any resolution.

    October 2, 2007 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  18. Truth Teller

    Zack in NJ

    She waited to release her numbers today in hopes that she would overshadow a real story. Today is the 5th anniversary of the now famous speeck given by Barack Obama opposing an impending war with Iraq. I think it is fitting to post it here. Check out the predictions that have come to pass. The brilliance and insight of Barack Obama will cause him to prevail and win the primary.

    Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

    I don’t oppose all wars.

    After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

    I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

    So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

    Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

    The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

    October 2, 2007 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm |
  19. new york

    If I were Hillary Clinton I would fire my financial director who had mislead me and the public by making almost 30% financial forecast error within two days. How can she tolerate this and trust them??? It really bothers me.

    October 2, 2007 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  20. Vincent, Maine, Rhode Island

    How much of this money is from the FEDERAL LOBBYISTS???? ONly adetailed breakdown of the amount collected would give a clear picture. Obama would have been way ahead if he shamelessly collected money from the F...lobbyists.

    October 2, 2007 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  21. Steve, Stow, OH

    Campaign contributions are like bribery, a felony act, it's NOT a matter of praise and honor! I'm tired of news about who "raised" how much – I want to hear IDEAS and discuss VISIONS ! Please!

    October 2, 2007 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  22. Ron, Winchester, VA

    If she doesn't need all this money in the primary, since she seems to be the default candidate at this point... can she use it all in the general election?

    If so, it looks like the Republicans will be at a funding disadvantage for the first time in history, particularly since the GOP can't rely on the Marlboros and Joe Camels of the world donating their mega-million to them anymore.

    October 2, 2007 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  23. Chip Celina OH

    Danny G,

    So you rather have a candidate that will tell you that a year from now he/she would allow Israel to send missles into Iran as part of a pre-empty effort to take their nuclear capabilities, but you do however have a problem with her voting to declare the revolutionary guard "an extremist/terrorist" group that is been provend are directly involved in killing our soldiers… are you sure you watched?

    Yes, I'm sure I watched. The question was not whether the candidate (as president) would allow Israel to launch missiles...
    It was: Do you feel Israel would be justified launching a strike if they felt threatened? The term is either pre-emptive or pre-emptory, not pre-empty!

    Senator Clinton demurred, Richardson gave a REAL response, whether I agree with his answer or not I KNOW WHERE HE STANDS!

    This is at least one 'hypothetical' you would hope a future president of this country has considered due to its likelihood of actually happening. She should have at least wondered, "If this happens, here are the following parameters I use to either agree with what they have done or condemn it. Based on A,B and C it is justified, based on X,Y or Z it would not be."

    She either hasn't thought about it or refuses to give us the answer, neither is acceptable.

    As for the fact that she supported the "NON_BINDING" resolution to call another sovereign nation's army a terrorist group was stupid. The Iranians could care less about semantic distinctions of binding or non-binding, what they see is "America says our army is a terrorist organization" period. Why do you think they listed OUR Army and the CIA as terrorist organizations shortly after this "non-binding" resolution. Did we provoke their declaration? I'm not a betting man, but if I were, that's where my money would be. So, as far as the good senator raising our standing in the world with other nations, this vote doesn't show it.

    I'm glad you are happy with your vote, that is afterall, how our country works. And I agree with you that we as a nation should be more united.

    Have a great day,

    October 2, 2007 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  24. Pat, Huntington, NY

    CNN please come up with better pictures of our future Madam President Clinton!

    October 2, 2007 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  25. Chris, Middletown, CT

    I heard Soros gave 26.5 million in the third quarter – that explains that! Why doesn't she take this money (hers) and give it to the poor....??

    October 2, 2007 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7