Obama's $40 million in March is double Clinton's fund-raising
The money has let him outspend her in Pa., and could catch the eye of superdelegates.
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama raked in $40 million in March, leaving Hillary Rodham Clinton and her $20 million in the fund-raising dust and stuffing his treasury so he can outspend her in the Pennsylvania primary.
His new donations also buttressed his argument to superdelegates that he has built a vast network of donors and volunteers that superdelegates wouldn't want to lose by denying him the nomination.
Obama has attracted nearly 1.3 million donors, largely through the Internet.
He has raised $131 million in just the first three months of this year compared with $70 million for Clinton. Republican John McCain's campaign has not revealed his March fund-raising, but he has been far behind the Democrats, raising less than $23 million in January and February combined.
Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, claimed a double benefit from the Illinois senator's fund-raising. "Many of our contributors are volunteering for the campaign, making our campaign the largest grass-roots army in recent political history," he said.
Clinton, speaking to reporters in Burbank, Calif., in the midst of her own fund-raising sweep through the state, said: "We're both raising huge amounts of money, and I am thrilled at how effective Democrats have been in raising money the last 15 or so months.
"I will have money to compete. Obviously Sen. Obama has more than enough money to compete. But this is a good news story because it means we are raising it from people committed to our candidacies."
Indeed, the numbers, even for the lagging Clinton, are remarkable. While both raised less than they did in February, the March contributions came during a lull in the presidential contest. There have not been any primaries or contests since March 11, and the most competitive showdowns were March 4 in Texas and Ohio.
Obama's money has given him a significant spending edge over Clinton in Pennsylvania. He has purchased more than $2.7 million in television ads in the state, according to data compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. Clinton has spent almost $900,000 on ads in the state.
His money also has allowed Obama to look over the horizon to May contests in Indiana and North Carolina. He has already spent about $230,000 on ads in each state.
Clinton began airing her first North Carolina ad yesterday.
Obama's financial edge allows him to spend on what many politicians would consider strategic luxuries. He's even running Spanish language ads in Pennsylvania - not a state with a large Hispanic population.
"If that's not an embarrassment of riches," observed Evan Tracey, the chief operating officer at TNS Media.
Obama outspent the New York senator heading into the March 4 contests in Texas and Ohio. Clinton still won the primaries in both states, though Obama took more delegates in Texas by winning a concurrent caucus there.
Obama's money also provides a separate story line focused on his powerful network of donors. With neither candidate able to win the nomination on the basis of delegates selected by state primaries and caucuses, the burden falls on superdelegates.
"His ability to raise more money than Hillary Clinton is part of the handicapping that is going on by superdelegates," said Steve Murphy, a Democratic consultant who worked on Bill Richardson's presidential campaign but who is now unaligned.
More political coverage online at http:// go.philly.com/paprimary EndText