Money y Mano

Some say who cares about how much money people raise, it is about how they stand on the issues. Of course, no one will hear about how they stand on the issues if they don't have money. That's because, unlike you and I, most people don't care about this stuff. Most people won't vote in the primaries, and the half of all elidgible voters who vote in the general election don't decide until the fall. So free coverage and paid coverage are the way to go. NH Union Leader looks at the Race nicely for everyone though.

On the other hand, Clark got free coverage based on doing stuff for his paid coverage, whereas Kerry got coverage for his failing of getting paid coverage. "After relentless fund-raising in his late-entry presidential campaign, retired Army general Wesley K. Clark raised between $10.4 million and $11.1 million in the final quarter of 2003 and will be eligible for up to $6 million in federal matching funds," his staff told the Globe in a fundraising total story with Clark as the headline, not Dean or Kerry.

Right along with what I said yesterday "Senator John F. Kerry, who recently loaned $6.4 million to his campaign, raised only $2.5 million in the fourth quarter." Meanwhile, Clark has raised $20M for the year, and he started in late September. This means he passed Lieberman (the supposed money raiser), Gephardt (Mr. Union $), Edwards (fresh face Clinton Jr), and the jokesters, who all had 12 months to do this. And also keep in mind, Clark spent a month or two screwing up.

Clark has $6M CoH, but he "has already paid for much of his January television advertising in New Hampshire, and his campaign expects to reach the spending caps in New Hampshire. He is also airing ads in South Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, and North Dakota, and plans to advertise soon in Virginia and Wisconsin." Another $4M is coming in via fundraising next quarter, and another $6+ M in matching funds in January and February. "Aides say they expect Clark will be able to spend $25 million through Feb. 3."

According to the Post's Jim VandeHei, "Clark is the only candidate moving up in New Hampshire, according to public polls and internal surveys by two rival campaigns, though he trails Dean and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). If Clark can overtake Kerry, the retired general could storm into the seven states holding votes on Feb. 3 with significant momentum. With more money than many of his rivals, Clark is planning a sustained media campaign in South Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona for four weeks until those states vote, a top adviser said. The campaign is also planning to buy television airtime in Wisconsin and Virginia. Dean is the only other candidate advertising on television in so many states."

If you add the $3.7 million plus the $11.1 million, you get pretty close to the $15+ Million Dean raised. Also, there is no CoH statement left on Dean's campaign, who knows how much money they are going to spend on making sure they win Iowa.

All this means while Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards are trying to get something going in Iowa, Clark will free to campaign in New Hampshire (about 2 weeks worth of fun). Granite Staters crave all that attention. My bet: look for Clark to move up to second at around 15-20%. Kerry will slip to 10% and Dean will get 35-40%. (see latest tracking poll numbers of NH here) By February 2nd, Clark might have more CoH for all those states than Dean, and if Dean does win both NH and IA, he will be in some serious trouble.

"What the fund-raising figures show is that there are only two candidates who have the resources to win the nomination, and that is Howard Dean and Wesley Clark" said Clark strategist Chris Lehane [who got fired by Kerry and used to work for Gore in 2000], citing both candidates' fund-raising success and showings in early polls. "The empirical data fit the assertion that this has boiled down to a two-person race." For once, I agree with him. And so does Will Lester of AP. The Daily Kos, a Dean supporter and liberal-bastion blog, also sees it as a two man race. He thinks Clark's "I'm the only electible guy of the two of us" strategy is bad for the party.

"Of course, Clark has had the good fortune of having Dean in the race. The general has slipped in mostly under the radar while everyone else trains their guns on the frontrunner.

Look for that to change as the others, seeing Dean far ahead, look to outlast the rest of the pack (and thus consolidate the hypothetical "anti-Dean" bloc).

Gep is locked into a tight battle against Dean for Iowa, so look for Gep to keep hammering Dean. But Lieberman, Kerry, and (perhaps most of all) Edwards all need to knock Clark down a peg or two. It's too late for them, really, but they'll try anyway. "

In Clark's words: "If you are sick, hire a doctor; if you have legal trouble, hire a lawyer; and if your country is going in the wrong direction, you need a leader."

The influential Times collumnist Paul Krugman also sees it as a Dean-Clark race, but decides to tack on a comparison between Lieberman's Dean-bashing to the right to Nader's Gore-bashing to the left.

In Clark's words: "If you are sick, hire a doctor; if you have legal trouble, hire a lawyer; and if your country is going in the wrong direction, you need a leader."

In the New Year, look for more "Dean's actually not that liberal" stories that might hurt him in the short term but might help him against potential Rove attacks, assuming he wins the nomination. The LA Times finds Environmentalists in Vermont that hate Dean.

Happy New Year everyone. My New Year's resolution: get fit and get into law school and get Wes Clark in the White House. What's yours?