By JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama raked in $40 million in March, leaving Hillary Rodham Clinton and her $20 million in the fundraising dust and stuffing his campaign treasury so he can outspend her in the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

His haul in new donations also buttressed his argument to Democratic superdelegates that he has built a vast network of donors and volunteers that they 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 to $70 million for Clinton. Republican John McCain’s campaign has not revealed his March fundraising, 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 fundraising. “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 fundraising 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, where the April 22 primary is the biggest delegate prize left on the Democratic calendar. 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 on Thursday, a 60-second spot that urges viewers to submit questions to her campaign. “Just go to NCAskMe.com, and then I’ll be getting back to you here on TV to answer your questions and offer some solutions,” Clinton says in the ad.

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 party officials and elected officials — the so-called superdelegates — who are weighing a variety of factors in making their selection.

“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.

Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist who worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, noted that while 1.3 million donors is only a fraction of the total number of people who have voted in the presidential contests so far, “it still represents a ground force unlike anything we’ve ever seen.”

“It’s hard to argue that he’s not a representing a — quote — new kind of politics — end quote — with 1.3 million donors,” she added.

Obama’s flush finances could work against him, however, if his heavy spending doesn’t yield results. A sizable Clinton victory in Pennsylvania could raise questions about Obama’s viability.

Clinton’s ad in North Carolina suggests she is not afraid of spending money either and could force Obama to ratchet up his advertising in that state.

Some unaligned Democrats remain wary of the entire situation, afraid that the quantities of money and continuing competition will hurt the eventual party nominee as McCain builds up his support with little opposition.

“Obama and Clinton’s fundraising numbers are impressive,” Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000, said in an e-mail exchange. “There’s no question that voters remain excited about the two candidates, but if this money is used to tear the party apart or to destruct the other while McCain is out on a bio tour, it would be akin to pouring it down the drain.”

SAN JOSE, Calif. (KCBS) The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for Texas delegates appears to be tightening. Nearly half of the votes from Saturday’s Texas caucuses remain to be counted, with Obama leading Clinton 58 percent to 42 percent. Obama’s campaign has predicted he’ll win the overall delegate race though Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in the March 4th primary.
Obama is continuing his swing through Pennsylvania. After a rally at Penn State, he traveled to the state capital of Harrisburg, where he repeated a call for party unity. He also criticized Republican nominee-to-be John McCain, saying the Arizona senator undercut his own credibility by supporting the lengthening of Bush tax cuts he had previously opposed.

On the other side of the country, former President Bill Clinton appealed to undecided California superdelegates to back his wife. And he said those squeamish about the hard-fought race for the nomination should “chill” and let everyone have their say.

California Democrats wrapped up their annual state convention in San Jose Sunday, but first they heard one last appeal for support from the rival presidential campaigns.

Most notably former President Bill Clinton was at the event. He met privately with about 15 of the 21 remaining undecided super delegates, before speaking to the full convention. He told the delegates the extended campaign fight between his wife Hillary, and Barack Obama is not hurting the Democratic Party.

”Chill out! We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say,” said Clinton to a cheering crowd.

He asked for patience, and then made the case for his wife. “I strongly believe that Hillary would be the best Commander in Chief,” said Clinton before detailing her qualifications for almost an hour.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris spoke up for her candidate, Barack Obama. “It’ is Barack Obama Californians that have the ability to bring our nation together,” said Harris.

It’s a reality many rank and file Democratic Party voters are not happy about. In the early ’80s the party created the Superdelegate system to try to keep the party mainstream by giving party insiders votes as so-called ’superdelegates.’ The vast majority of superdelegates are members of Congress or the Democratic National Committee.

In Sacramento, long-time party activist and Democratic National Committee member Steven Ybarra is still undecided and waiting, he says, to see what candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are willing to do for Latinos. He says he’s been hearing a lot from both campaigns to try to woo his vote. “‘We need for you to commit, and to vote and to, rah, rah, rah, sis boom bah.’ OK, what’s in it for Latinos nationwide? What’s in it for Latinos here in California? That’s what I want to know,” Ybarra said.

To some ordinary Democrats, the superdelegate system smacks of political insiders getting too much influence. They worry that superdelegates could decide the nominee if the race stays close. “I’ve never voted for them, but I know that they can make a choice that could interfere with whatever I vote,” said West Sacramento voter Dave Demianew.

California Democratic Party vice-chair and superdelegate Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker committed her vote to Obama about eight months ago and says her vote will stay the same even though Hillary Clinton won the state’s primary election. She says superdelegates are not intended to thwart the will of voters — in fact, just the opposite. “And I think the grass roots are speaking louder and louder all the time, and the voters and I think … we’ll do the will of the people at the end of the day,” she said.

Click here to see the News Video

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — Senator Hillary Clinton won Florida’s Democratic presidential primary, according to network and Associated Press projections, in a contest that was largely a popularity poll because no convention delegates were at stake.

Clinton had 48 percent of the vote to 30 percent for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, with 19 percent of precincts reporting. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards had 14 percent.

Florida violated party rules when it moved its voting contest ahead of Feb. 5, the date sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. The DNC allowed four early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

While Obama, Edwards and Clinton agreed last September that they wouldn’t compete for Florida because of the party- imposed penalty, Clinton, a New York senator, last week announced she would press to have Florida’s delegates seated at the Democratic convention in August. Florida is a crucial swing state in the general election.

None of the candidates campaigned in the state, though Obama aired television commercials that ran on cable channels. Clinton attended fund-raisers there and held a rally with supporters tonight in Davie, Florida, after the polls closed.

“I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today,” Clinton said. “I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida’s Democratic delegates seated, but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008.”

Florida’s primary is a “beauty contest,” Obama told reporters on his plane to Kansas today. “None of us campaigned there, so people have no idea what the respective candidates stand for and haven’t had a chance to lift the hood and kick the tires.”

Still, tonight represents a “meaningful and decisive public opinion poll,” said Casey Klofstad, assistant professor of political science at the University of Miami.

“It presents an opportunity for Obama to continue his ascendancy or Clinton to put the brakes on that and regain some of the momentum she had before South Carolina,” Klofstad said.

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

KINGSTREE, S.C. — Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a “hit job” on him.

Scolding a reporter, Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“They know this is what you want to cover,” Mr. Clinton told a CNN reporter in Charleston, in an apparent reference to the Obama campaign.

“Shame on you,” the former president added.

The sharp comments again drew extraordinary attention to Mr. Clinton as he campaigned in South Carolina in his wife’s stead. Mrs. Clinton spent parts of the day in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, looking ahead to the multistate presidential nominating contests on Feb. 5.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks were delivered in an even tone but heightened the tension between the Obama and Clinton camps. Mr. Clinton dredged up complaints about voting in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, where Mr. Obama won more delegates but Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote, and continued to mull publicly the role that race could play in the primaries.

That issue has permeated the campaign here in advance of the Democratic primary on Saturday, in which at least half the voters are expected to be black.

Mr. Clinton also suggested in public remarks that his wife might lose here because of race. Referring to her and Mr. Obama, he said, “They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that’s why people tell me that Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win here.”

Later in the day, he said that if Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination, he would “do what I can to help him become president.” Mr. Clinton said he was “very impressed with the nonracial appeal” of Mr. Obama.

At about the same time, the Clinton campaign began running a radio commercial about Mr. Obama, which replayed Mr. Obama’s words from a recent interview with The Reno Gazette-Journal: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

“Really?” a voice-over in the Clinton commercial says. “Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today?”

In his interview, Mr. Obama did not specify any particular idea and did not say he supported any of them, though Mrs. Clinton’s commercial strongly implies that he did.

The Obama campaign called Mrs. Clinton’s commercial “dishonest,” and Mr. Obama broadly implied at campaign appearances that the Clintons were misleading voters, though he did not mention the Clintons by name.

Mr. Obama further responded with his own radio advertisement, saying that it was Mrs. Clinton who had frequently sided with the Republicans on issues like the Iraq war and the North American Free Trade Agreement. “She’ll say anything, and change nothing,” the commercial said. “It’s time to turn the page.”

Mr. Obama spent the day in South Carolina, though his campaign was also preparing for Feb. 5 by expanding its television advertising into several states.

In Sumter, Mr. Obama specifically distanced himself from the Republicans. “No Bush, No Cheney, No Sense,” he chanted at a packed community center as the crowd repeated it so that everyone thundered together.

Mr. Obama often talks about his appeal to both independents and Republicans, and on Tuesday he said he wanted to work with Republicans, but that other politicians — he did not mention Mrs. Clinton by name — had distorted his statements. “Part of what happens in Washington is that folks will try to twist your words around,” he said.

“They’re trying to bamboozle you,” he said to the overwhelmingly black crowd. “It’s the same old okey-doke.”

Mr. Clinton’s remarks about the media, which the Clinton campaign has said is biased against them, came in response to a question from a CNN reporter in Charleston. The reporter told him that Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina and an Obama supporter, had called the Clinton campaign in South Carolina “reprehensible.” CNN also told him that Mr. Harpootlian had compared their tactics to those of Lee Atwater, the Republican operative who used racial politics and wedge issues.

“I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful,” Mr. Clinton said. “He had more pollsters than she did. When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word. And I don’t care about it today.” (The reference to the senator from Punjab was in a memo by an Obama campaign staff member.)

Mr. Clinton said no one in the audience in Charleston had asked him about how race was being used in the campaign. “They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover,” he said. “What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along.”

In response, Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said: “At the end of the day, we trust in the wisdom of the people of South Carolina, and we won’t be deterred from the challenges facing their lives by the Clinton campaign’s sideshows.”

By Brian Montopoli

If the polls are to be believed, Barack Obama, a man with just three years of Senate experience and virtually no national name recognition before the 2004 Democratic convention, is about to win the New Hampshire primary. The win would come less than a week after his victory in the Iowa caucuses and make him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile - named most admired woman in the world, the spouse of a former president, the person the media had long talked about as the inevitable Democratic nominee - could be on the verge of a demoralizing defeat, one that wouldn’t be easy for her campaign to recover from. As her need to fight back tears in New Hampshire yesterday illustrated, the pressure of campaigning and expectations seem to be taking a toll on her.

So what happened? How did Obama’s campaign outmaneuver a Clinton team that many observers thought unstoppable?

Message:

Obama cast himself as the “change” candidate early in the campaign, and his competitors’ attempts to co-opt that message serve as a testament to its effectiveness. Clinton, realizing that an argument built on experience and competence had not won voters over, recast herself as the candidate whose experience could best bring change about. John Edwards, pushing populist rhetoric further than his rivals, cast himself as the only man willing to go far enough to affect real change. Even Mitt Romney, a Republican, has made the notion that he is a change candidate one of the central arguments of his campaign.

The candidates have good reason to cast themselves as change agents: Polls show that the majority of Americans - and the vast majority of Democrats - are now calling for it. More than half of Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa said the capacity for change was the most important factor in their assessment of a candidate. But change was not a Clinton campaign theme early in her campaign, which left the door open for Obama to claim it. He stressed that he opposed the war in Iraq, which Clinton voted for, to hammer home his rejection of Bush administration politics. While Clinton has repeatedly stressed her ability to foster change in Washington in recent weeks - she has been saying “if you want to know what kind of changes I will make, look at the changes I have already made” - one Democratic consultant calls the attempt “too little, too late, and too obvious.”

Tactics:

The Clinton campaign flirted with the notion of not competing in Iowa, a suggestion that doesn’t look so bad in retrospect. The former first lady finished third in the caucuses, a result that came in part because the Obama campaign, unlike the Clinton campaign, aggressively targeted new voters - and they responded. “The astounding thing that really made the difference is the massive increase in turnout,” says Dennis J. Goldford, professor of politics at Drake University. More than 239,000 Democrats caucused on Jan. 3rd, nearly double the number who did so in 2004. Fifty-seven percent of voters under 30 - a group that caucused in unprecedented numbers - broke for Obama.

The Clinton campaign has tried to downplay the importance of Obama’s victory in Iowa. “The worst thing would be to over count Iowa and its importance,” Chief Clinton Strategist Mark Penn told reporters after the caucuses. He added, “Iowa doesn’t have a record of picking presidents.” But the Clinton campaign seems to have underestimated how damaging a relatively poor finish in Iowa could be, particularly considering the compressed primary schedule and the media’s obsessive focus on the caucuses. Iowa isn’t always a bellwether - George H.W. Bush came in third there in 1988, behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson, and went on to win the Republican nomination - but it can transform a campaign and anoint a new frontrunner. That’s exactly what happened in 2004, when John Kerry’s Iowa win propelled him to the Democratic nomination ahead of Howard Dean.

In many ways Obama did not run a traditional campaign targeted at solidifying the base of the party, instead opting to stress inclusiveness and speak of reaching out. But he ran a very traditional campaign in one sense: He put together a massive organization and raising over $100 million during 2007. Most candidates with insurgent-like energy shun the party establishment, but Obama has welcomed such support whenever offered, winning the endorsements of politicians and celebrities alike.

Clinton Fatigue:

After more than a decade in which the Clinton and Bush families have been at the forefront of politics, there was an opening for a candidate who could transform anti-Clinton (and, more broadly, anti-status quo) sentiment into support. “The Clintons and the Bushes represent the last generation for many people,” says David King, a public policy lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Obama has been able to claim the anti-Clinton mantle in part by resisting overtly negative attacks on his rivals, attacks that might have caused voters to see him as nothing more than the latest divisive politician to emerge onto the national scene. Most candidates, King says, will talk about a new, post-partisan era, but “the next talking point will be a little zinger to somebody else. Obama hasn’t been like that. He’s been consistently positive.”

And Clinton’s early message of competence may only have exacerbated Clinton fatigue in voters. “When she talked about the grounds for her claims of competence it kept tying her back to the 90s,” says Goldford. “And it raised questions in people’s minds - are we really talking about Bill’s third term?”

Background and Style:

People have long raised questions about whether Americans could elect a black president, but thus far Obama’s race seems to have benefited him. “His being black is an advantage in Democratic primaries because racial tolerance is an important component of being a liberal Democrat,” says Democratic media strategist Dan Payne. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman argues that Obama’s race “helps to make his cause a movement.”

“It helps people to believe they’re involved in a historically transformative experience,” Mellman says.

Obama’s compelling life story, which he has articulated both on the stump and in books, seems to evoke a strong emotional response in many voters. Like President George W. Bush, he talks eloquently about his struggles early in life. (The similarities don’t end there: When Mr. Bush was a candidate, he cast himself as the man who would unify the country, much like Obama does today.)

And Obama’s appealing personal style, combined with his generally positive rhetoric, has been enough for many.

“We don’t know much about him,” says Payne. “He’s almost like a spirit. People like the feeling they get when they’re in his presence. But they couldn’t tell you three things that he’s done or stands for. We’re at that weird stage where candidates get so magnetic that it almost doesn’t matter what they say.”

That doesn’t last forever, of course, and Obama could slip up anytime, perhaps making the kind of verbal gaffe that can sink a nominee. But it’s been a remarkable run so far, with Obama, not Clinton, emerging as the candidate most adept at avoiding the potential pitfalls of the presidential campaign.

“So far,” says King, “Barack Obama has done just about everything right.”

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — It’s looking like it could be a happy New Year for Barack Obama: The Illinois senator is leading closest rival Hillary Clinton in a new poll with just one day to go before the critical Iowa caucuses.

In the final Des Moines Register poll before Thursday night’s nominating contests, Obama was the choice of 32% of likely Democratic caucus-goers. Sen. Clinton of New York, meanwhile, pulled 25% while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards garnered 24%.

On the Republican side, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is leading ex-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the new poll. Huckabee had 32% of likely caucus-goers while Romney is winning 26%. Arizona Sen. John McCain comes in third with 13%.

Judging from recent polls, Iowa has basically been a three-way race among Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the run-up to the first-in-the-nation caucuses, and Romney and Huckabee have traded places in the lead on the GOP side.

Meanwhile, about a third of likely caucus-goers said they could choose another candidate before Thursday night’s contests, according to the Register’s poll. Also, 6% said they were undecided or uncommitted.

Both the Republican and Democratic polls have margins of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

CONCORD Several newspapers made endorsements Sunday in the presidential race.

Democrat Barack Obama:

The Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire endorsed Obama as the best choice for Democratic voters. “There’s plenty of experience in Washington. What’s lacking is inspired leadership that can speak directly to the people over the heads of the partisan politicians and craft a national consensus not seen in decades.”

The Dallas Morning News also endorsed Obama, calling him “our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past.”

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Iowa’s Burlington Hawk Eye endorsed Clinton as the most impressive of the Democratic candidates. “In person, she’s calculated yet personable. On issues, she’s not a clone of her husband. She’s an independent thinker with progressive ideas.”

The Quad City Times in Davenport, Iowa, also chose Clinton. “Hillary Clinton passes test after test after test. This Clinton arrived for the caucus campaign with much, much more experience than the first Clinton to stump across Iowa.”

Republican John McCain:

The Quad City Times chose McCain, calling him “a leader whose life experiences, personally, politically and heroically, have tested his mettle for the nation’s top job.” The paper said it disagrees with McCain on Iraq and ethanol subsidies, but said “America can benefit from an honorable man with a hero’s record.”

Republican Mike Huckabee:

The Dallas Morning News chose Huckabee, saying that while he is not an “ideal candidate,” he “is the change agent the nation most needs.”

Republican Mitt Romney:

The Sioux City Journal of Iowa endorsed Romney. “Romney combines an outsider’s new face with a proven track record of success as an executive in both the private and public sectors. …Personally, he is engaging, even charming, he has shown an ability to reach across partisan divides, and he is passionate on the campaign trail. In terms of leadership qualities, he possesses ‘it,’ and the importance of ‘it’ should not be diminished.”

The Concord Monitor of New Hampshire broke with political tradition, telling readers why they should not vote for Romney instead of whom they should support. It called Romney a “disquieting figure” who looks and acts like a presidential contender but “surely must be stopped” because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president.