Hillary's numbers should be out today as well. It will be interesting to see those.

Obama has $51 million in cash on hand. Hot damn!

Hillary's numbers are now up. I've been reading some of the analysis over at Daily Kos. Sounds like she raised $8 mil in March, and has about $10 mil in debts. Here's the numbers. I'm not sure how they figure what is only for the general, as the above-mentioned numbers are primary only.

5. Covering Period 03/01/2008 Through 03/31/2008

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 33153092.16
7. Total Receipts This Period 20931870.78
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 54084962.94
9. Total Disbursements This Period 22372765.27
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 31712197.67
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00
Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 10321562.87
Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) 172767416.42
15. NET Operating Expenditures 157317429.66

Show me the money!

Surely she didn't loan herself more money? That would be crazy. She will never get the $5 million back.

With all the money he's had pouring it, why didn't he sew up the nomination months ago?

Opus, just gotta tell you, in this time of tension & strife seeing you sure perks us up!

When I first saw this particular Opus in the strip I fell on the floor laughing.

By the way, love what your posting as well. Keep up the fun & good works.

One clear indicator that Barrack will be a better leader than either Hillary or McCain are the obvious differences in how they've run their campaigns. Barrack's campaign is flush with money based on endless small donors (money that comes from 'the people') while Clinton, who's relied more on the conventional democratic monied interests, is in big time debt; and McCain can't seem to get sufficient enthusiasm from his base to raise much cash at all.

Also, Clinton's campaign has been plagued with squabbling and high profile firings and made huge blunders in having no post Super Tuesday strategy in most states, while Barrack's army of volunteers and paid staffers are managing one of the most efficient, effective campaign operations in history. What does this say about how they'd select, lead and motivate a White House staff? I think it speaks volumes.

Barrack's leadership style nurtures flexible, nimble teams with shared and clearly understood objectives, better equipped to achieve common goals. Hillary’s campaign has been characterized by the more traditional, top down leadership style where only a close circle have access and make decisions. It's a closed, bureaucratic approach most private sector organizations now see as less evolved and effective than flatter, more matrixed organizations, where a clearly communicated set of principles and objectives guide action vs. the orders and mandates of a few insiders.

In this and many other ways, Hillary represents the past, and Barrack represents the future. McCain is so far behind the curve in this discussion, his approach can hardly be mentioned.

Barrack will likely succeed because history tells us, at some point, the past must yield to the future. It's inevitable. And I think the time for this change is now. We shall see.

Obama '08

‘Ann’

Obama's 5 to 1 advantage in cash and he still isn't beating Senator Clinton in PA LOL!! It will be interesting to see how much he pays for every vote he gets tue. What a joke.