But it is hard to raise money when your reputation for managing it is so poor.

Not really.  Clinton would be breaking records with her fund-raising, if Obama wasn't already breaking those same records by much bigger numbers.

The difference is that his campaign is well-ran and efficient, whereas hers has a history of hemorrhaging money on frivolous things, such as 500k for PARKING and paying guys like Penn too much, much too much, for too little effect.

The difference in fundraising is not as great as the difference in campaign management.  I don't believe it is an indicator of economic management or mismanagement as the President, but the differences in their campaign do say a lot about the competency level of the people they surround themselves with.  The stories which emerged during the Patti Doyle replacement were very worrisome in terms of how she places loyalty and secrecy  above competence.

Even Jerome pointed out that you have to spend money to make money.

Mark Penn's strategy did not account for the need to raise over $50 million each month, so they did not have a plan to market their candidate to reach that figure.

I wish she had hired Carville.

So why isn't McCain stiffing people on bills?  He's raised something like a 1/5th what either of our candidates have.

I think it's a combination of both overspending/mismanagement and a lack of fundraising.  Remember, that was the reason Patti Solis-Doyle was fired and Hillary's old friend Maggie Williams was brought in.  Her campaign had essentially gone broke in Iowa, and was just coasting into super Tuesday broke.

Things don't seem to have changed much under Williams though.  Probably because as the diarist pointed out, much of Clinton's money is being sucked up by a handful of advisors, none of whom Clinton is willing to get rid of.

No substantive response, eh?

She is in the three Senate committees that oversee the nation's finances. Sen. Clinton emphasized Defence, which does not have a  good track record of managing finances either.

Go ahead, check it out. His campaign has something like 10 times less debt than hers. He's also paying for his staffers' health insurance, while the Clinton campaign is well behind in those payments.

How can we trust this woman to get us affordable national healthcare if she can't even provide for her campaign? This is a very disturbing trend, and I think the superdelegates are going to have to factor her financial ineptitude into their decision.

You have engaged in ratings abuse.

Your behavior is disgraceful.

The FEC report - http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml - shows that Obama did have a debt of $908 to AIG American International Group compared to $292,000 for HRC's insurance debts.

The Clinton campaign just sent out a frantic fund raising appeal which asks for as little as $5 per person. Obama has paid his health insurnce bills for sure. He also never had to stop paying his staff. Or loan his own money to the campaign.

It is not an isolated incident or two. There are several hundred unpaid bills listed in the Federal disclosure statements. `Deadbeat' is the word that comes to mind.

Your $100 pays for five minutes of Howard Wolfson's time.

campaigns and wars. The Clinton campaign strategy was based on shock and awe. She did not count on an organized insurgency. What will happen if she is in charge of the war effort?

is a big deal I would argue. It goes to the basic integrity of the campaign. WalMart my do it, but is that a high enough standard for the candidate who is the champion of the working class?