I I noted this a few months ago, but I still maintain that when you're severely behind in fundraising, touting that as evidence of your superiority as a candidate just doesn't make sense. But the Clinton campaign continues to do so in an email address to supporters today:
With 14 days to go until the people of Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign has decided to go all-out. They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz. Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television.
So now, here's what we have to ask ourselves: Have we come this far in our history-making contest for the Democratic nomination only to see the race decided not by the quality of our ideas but by the size of our opponent's media budget? [emphasis theirs]
Of course, the Obama campaign is unleashing an unyielding media blitz because they can. They raised twice as much last month. And they have that money because they have more support, from more people, than Clinton does right now. So while the Clinton camp is of course using this appeal to try to raise more money, it seems at best counterintuitive to use the fact that their opponent is out-performing as a request for help. Not to mention a stretch of the proof in that it attempts to cast him as the big-money candidate whose advantage in funding is preexisting.
While we're on the topic of funding, I also want to emphasize Holly Yeager's point that Obama's money advantage is important not only because he can spend more money in places like Pennsylvania, but because it frees him and his campaign from spending time and effort raising more. And as the above quote illustrates, he also doesn't have to expend resources and credibility trying to craft a message to recast his failures.
--Kate Sheppard
