No, I don't mean that John McCain cheated on his wife. I mean he did cheat on his first wife with the 25 year old rich hottie who became he second wife. But that's not what I am talking about when I say McCain has an "Edwards Problem."
Remember a few years back when John Edwards billed a haircut to the campaign for $400 and it became international news, covered breathlessly for days and weeks and became fodder for every weak comedian who couldn't come up with clever material? That's the kind of problem I mean, and it took US Magazine to figure it out:
The 72-year-old was recently made TV-ready by makeup artist Tifanie White who's worked on So You Think You Can Dance and American Idol.
McCain paid the 2002 beauty-school grad $5,583.43 for her services, according to the Federal Election Commission.
So we can expect, I am sure, to see Fox News skewer McCain for his vanity and for wasting his donors' money for his beauty treatment? MSNBC will spend hours scouring the parlors of Alaska to find out what it REALLY costs to be made beautiful? I mean, that's 10 times what it cost Edwards and they started calling him "Breck Girl".
Here's what it cost to get McCain made up all doll-like: 2.4 maxed out donors at $2300 a pop.
That's right, somewhere in a very American small town there is a morally upright family whose husband and wife both maxed out to the general campaign to help John McCain get elected, and then even threw in an extra $900 plus from their 18 year old daughter who is waiting virginaly for her hockey-player beau to pop the question.
They may go without heat some warm days in February this year, eat margarine instead of butter, and have to put Fido down instead of get that life-saving ear surgery, but it was worth it so they could donate money to John McCain so he could get all purty to go on TV.
The worst part of [the focus on John Edwards] is that for the past several weeks, this as swirled around the news media. Beginning in the highly reputable National Enquirer, rolling through North Carolina's Charlotte Observer, making a stop at Fox News, and finally landing on ABC. Every pundit who had not yet opined on this story will tonight.
The world is shocked and dismayed. Talking heads will be spinning for weeks to come.
And no one seems to give a shit that 17 Soldiers have died this month in a war of choice in Iraq, and a war of neglect in Afghanistan. And that's the most important story so far this month.
If only we had someone who had actually served who could draw our focus back to what is truly important:
Oh, well, I guess the glare off of his decorations has blinded him. Not once has Chris Myers sent out a press release reminding people of the sacrifice our armed forces are making. I guess for Myers, campaigning for Congress is kind of like the war in Iraq - you just have to look like you care.
If you haven't already heard of Half in Ten, hopefully you will soon. Picking up where his presidential campaign left off, Senator John Edwards, together with ACORN, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Coalition on Human Needs, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has launched a campaign whose goal is as ambitious as it is simple: to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent within 10 years. The plan goes something like this:
(1) Elevate and sustain a focus on the situations facing the poor and middle class today
(2) Build and strengthen an effective constituency to demand legislative action on poverty and economic mobility
(3) Advance specific legislative and policy proposals that will deliver real benefits to struggling American families
There really is no reason the richest nation on earth can't achieve these goals. We have more than enough money. It's just a matter of political will, adjusted priorities, and a commitment to get it done.
Edwards will be in Newark today as part of a national tour to promote the Half in Ten campaign, and to join the call for a hike in New Jersey's minimum wage. He'll be visiting the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, which has been described as a "think and do tank" with a focus on urban research and advocacy to the advancement of New Jersey's urban areas and residents. (And, luckily for me, it's conveniently located just steps from my office - so, I should be able to drop in at lunchtime and report back later this afternoon.)
Well, on December 22nd I wrote that if we wanted our votes to count on February 5 we should vote at the polls and not absentee:
But the February 5th Presidential Primary is different, with the relative strength of various candidates determined in contests that are over an public before ours even starts. By the time they get to us, the outsided Iowa and New Hampshire primaries will be over. Michigan and Florida, with huge delegate counts that may or may not matter in the convention predate ours. Nevada and South Carolina are considered really important as representatives of the newly important Southwest and the always important South.
With all those contests done by February 5, some candidates may drop out or be totally marginalized. If you cast your vote for Richardson -- not a bad vote and just an example -- and he's dropped out after Florida and throws his support to Hillary your vote is wasted.
I'm glad that I did not vote absentee, because yesterday my candidate dropped out. My husband, however, did vote absentee for a candidate before they dropped out and is now wishing he could have voted later.
So now here is the question (with poll below): did you already vote for someone out of the race?
Please explain in comments how you feel if your candidate is out of the race already and you voted for them absentee, or if you plan on voting for them anyway, or anything else you want.
Just finished watching Edwards announce leaving the race. I'm not gonna lie and say I didn't cry. But I thought he showed just how much this race was NOT about him or his ego. It was about the issues.
It was clear that the reason he did not endorse anyone was the simple fact that that he wanted the issues he cared about to take center stage for the rest of the race no matter who won the primary.
We all had become so cynical - our pundits thinking small as well - analyzing the most incredibly important Presidential race of our lives in numbing sports metaphors and fight talk. Spoiler, kingmaker, etc.
Edwards was always the grownup in the room, but as a "son of the South" raised during segregation, he also was wise enough to see his place in history. He wanted to take this one important moment to shine the media attention that he never really got during the campaign finally onto the issues that mattered. The only ones that have ever really mattered. It took leaving the race to get those issues the attention they could never garner from the media during the campaign, but he really did us proud today.
I am sad, but encouraged that the issues I care about will hopefully take center stage in our political discourse - and maybe, just maybe, change our world from one where everyone only cares what is legal, or who is on top, to a place where we truly consider - and ACT on, what is ethical, moral, and just.
With the exception of 1984, New Jersey Democrats have suffered decades of irrelevance in deciding their party's presidential nominee. Candidates treated the state like an ATM, stopping by for an occasional fundraiser between nominating contests in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. This year, however, by holding its primary on the earliest date allowed under the rules of both political parties, New Jersey will play an important role in picking the presidential nominees.
New Jersey is one of twenty two states that will hold a Democratic Presidential primary or caucus on Feb. 5, the so-called "Super Tuesday". Two states, Florida and Michigan, moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday in violation of DNC rules. The punishment the DNC imposed for this violation, namely stripping both state of all of their delegates, was almost certainly a painful one, to give and to receive. But Democratic legislators and party leaders in both states ignored repeated warnings from the DNC that moving up their primary would cost them their delegations. They knew the rules, they knew the consequences for breaking them, and they broke them anyway.
Yet Hillary Clinton has held fundraisers in Florida and will visit the state for a rally tonight, despite having pledged not to do so. Barack Obama's national ad buy includes the Florida media markets. It seems that the candidates are giving Florida just as much attention as they are giving New Jersey, if not more.
Senator Clinton will ask her delegates to flout DNC rules and vote to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. If either she or Senator Obama clinches the nomination before the convention, we have no objection to seating at least some of these delegates in the name of party unity. But if the candidates enter the convention with neither controlling a majority of the delegates, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations would serve only to make a mockery of the DNC rules and bylaws and punish the 22 Super Tuesday states, including New Jersey, who decided not to play a disrespectful game of high-stakes chicken with the DNC. Therefore we call on New Jersey delegates and alternates for all candidates to pledge to vote against any motion to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, absent an agreement among all three remaining candidates to do so.
I'm writing this post because I have received a lot of heat in the last 3 days, most of them from Edwards' supporters and a lot of Kucinich supporters from NJ. Easily over a dozen harsh emails in the last 48 hours....As Congressman Kucinich's national campaign coordinator and manager for the past year, I have constantly heard from a lot of my friends in New Jersey, good people and good friends, that Dennis is taking away votes from Edwards and Obama, that he is a spoiler - I have heard from numerous Edwards supporters, a lot of them my friends from the New Jersey DFA & PDA, that they could never forgive Dennis for backing Edwards in 2004 over Howard Dean, arguing that is what pushed Dean into 3rd place in Iowa and Dean in 2nd place.
Update: I updated the title because this poll doesn't really predict who will win the primaries. Digging down into the numbers, Clinton leads 45%-30% among Democrats, but Obama leads 16%-9% among independents (44% are undecided, 13% for McCain, etc). The poll didn't try to model who would be voting in the Democratic or Republican primary, so if unaffiliated voters turn out in large numbers, who knows what will happen. I think these numbers aren't too meaningful on their own in terms of predicting the outcome, so take them with a grain of salt.
In the latest Fairleigh Dickinson University poll, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among likely Democratic primary voters by 45%-30%. That 15 point lead is similar to Clinton's 41%-27% lead in FDU's previous poll (1/22). John Edwards has the support of 6% of voters, a slight drop from 9% in the previous poll.
Fairleigh Dickinson University (1/20-1/27 MoE+/-5%) (1/22 results in parenthesis) Hillary Clinton 45% (41%)
Barack Obama 30% (27%)
John Edwards 6% (9%)
John McCain now leads with 29% of the vote from likely Republican voters, while Rudy 9uiliani and Mike Huckabee battle for second place with 20% and 15%, respectively. 9ui11iani is stalling while McCain and Huckabee pick up support.
John McCain 29% (23%)
Rudy 9ui11iani 20% (20%)
Mike Huckabee 15% (10%)
This latest poll was conducted over a week between January 20-27.
Last night, the Moorestown Democratic Club and the Burlington County Dems held a presidential forum in a community house in that gorgeous South Jersey town. Three speakers from each campaign talked last night: possible congressional candidate Amy Vazquez for Clinton, a Navy veteran (whose name escapes me) for Obama, and yours truly for Edwards. The atmosphere during the talks was electric, and the q and a session afterward allowed a chance for audience members to contribute and interact with the surrogates.
Though there was supposed to be a caucus and caucus count last night, there was no official tally given; there were some conspiracy theories going around about why this happened, but I'm not going to speculate. Anyway, Obama was clearly the winner. For a crowd of about 100 to 125, my estimate of the results is:
1). Obama (60%)
2). Clinton (25%) and
3). Edwards (15%)
Last night was a good night for several reason. Democrats were able to galvanize and get excited before the 5 Feb primary, several of us Blue Jersey bloggers got to meet (njdem and SJBrian were also there), and we got a preview of a possible congressional candidate and the local BurlCo races that we Dems can win in 2008. I hope I made a good case for supporting Edwards, too.
Is this part of a trend?. Promoted from the diaries -- Juan
Many of us who read Blue Jersey and favor transparency and an end to pay-to-play, even in our own party, have problems with what has been happening in Camden County; but this post is only tangentially related to the Norcross machine. Instead, I took Juan's challenge and decided to see in person whether the Camden County Democratic Committee would allow use of their headquarters for a presidential campaign other than Hillary Clinton's.
Upon walking into the headquarters in the Garden State Pavillion, one might mistake the building for a Clinton campaign office. Hillary signs dot the doors outside, and only, you guessed it, Hillary literature is available inside. One wouldn't know that John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich or Barack Obama even existed in this Democratic office because of the lack of material available on any other candidate than Clinton.
And here's the kicker: According to the municipal chair with whom I spoke, the Committee hasn't even voted on endorsing Clinton. Instead, the Committee hasn't voted on any candidate, but some members have endorsed Clinton personally.
Hence, I asked a Camden County Democratic Committee representative whether the Edwards campaign could use the offices for phonebanking, access to voter rolls, etc. Well, you would have thought I was asking whether the Huckabee campaign could use the offices. The person mentioned that she would ask, but that she didn't think it would be possible since Hillary had been endorsed (of course, she hasn't been voted on). Blue Jersey has noted that activists from campaigns other than the Clinton campaign had the same problems in BurlCo, even though the BurlCo Chair has supposedly taken steps to rectify the exclusion there. Will the Camden County Democratic Committee do the same?
The representative told me that since the Committee was a private organization, that they could endorse whomever they wanted and use their space to support whomever they wanted. County campaign offices and resources were used for the Clinton presidency campaign; at the very least, the Committee's decision to exclude the Edwards campaign from its headquarters and resources smacks of elitism and behavior that doesn't encourage Democratic consensus and unity.
Maybe you noticed that John Edwards finished second in the Iowa district delegate vote count, but got one fewer national delegate than Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you were surprised that Hillary Clinton got more votes in New Hampshire, but the same number of delegates as Barack Obama. Surely you've read some Obama claims that he "really" won Nevada in delegates 13-12, even though Clinton got more votes. It's enough to make me flashback to the Electoral College map. So, what's going on here, and how does it relate to New Jersey? This is the answer as I understand it.
In Jersey, we've been told there is "a" primary coming up, but there are actually twenty primaries happening on February 5. Each of these primaries occur in a "Delegate District," which is two of the familiar "Legislative Districts" combined. For example, I'm in Delegate District Two, which is LD3 (Sweeney's) and LD4 (Madden's) combined. Each district elects three or four delegates to the national convention. Now the LDs have (roughly) equal population, but the districts that have fewer Democratic voters only get three delegates. Each of these are truly separate primaries, in the sense that if Hillary Clinton turns out a crushing victory in District 20, it has the same effect in my district as her votes in Los Angeles: None whatsoever. There's a total of 70 delegates at stake in these twenty elections.
Note that at the end of the day, outcomes like a 5% win or a 10% win in votes may not be reflected at the district level. In a three delegate district, I think there are realistically only two possible outcomes: Either Clinton-Obama-Edwards tie with one each, or one of the them gets two, one gets one, and the other gets nothing. A candidate gets nothing if "he" fails to get 15% of the votes (I don't think that will happen to "she"). A four delegate district, however, could realistically split 2-2-0 or 3-1-0 or 2-1-1. As the district results are added up, it's possible that just as in the early states, a small lead by one candidate is not reflected in the delegate totals. Obama's counterintuitive Nevada result was powered by a small victory in an odd delegate district while splitting even-delegate districts by not losing by too many votes.
The NJ Democratic State Committee has not endorsed anyone for president. Chairman Joe Cryan, Governor Jon Corzine, Senator Bob Menendez, and most of the rest of the state party leadership support Hillary Clinton. There are Democratic State Committee members who support and are delegates for other candidates, but the Democratic Committee itself has not endorsed anyone (I'm not even sure if they can).
Despite having a contested primary, it appears as though the state committee is using its resources to support one Democratic candidate and one Democratic candidate only: Hillary Clinton. In December, the committee asked that Hillary Clinton be given unfair preferential placement on primary ballots - in violation of DNC rules (and any common sense democratic standard). Luckily, they soon changed course and requested a random draw instead.
This is simply the way things have always been done. Until party activists pointed out the gross unfairness of this practice - causing the DNC and other presidential campaigns to speak up - either nobody ever questioned it, or the questions weren't loud enough to warrant answers.
As a blogger, I'm on the media list for various groups, candidates, etc, including the Democratic State Committee. I've received hundreds of emails from the DSC's communications director over the last 2+ years. They're about local, county, congressional and presidential candidates or elected officials. Sometimes they're simply forwards of interesting articles. I searched through my inbox for the last 9 months of emails I've received. Below, I'm including the date and subject line of only those emails that mention any presidential candidate (I estimate that roughly 10% of emails received over the last 9 months met that criteria):
Jan 19, 2008: NJ Hillary - Advance Advisory Jan 11, 2008: Hillary's Aggressive Economic Plan Jan 10, 2008: Hillary NJ Media Contact Jan 9, 2008: Hillary News Call-In Dec 12, 2007: President Clinton In NJ Tonight Nov 1, 2007: Firefighters Protest Giuliani In NJ Sept 7, 2007: The Full List [full list of Hillary Clinton NJ endorsements]
Sept 7, 2007: more endorsements for Hillary Sept 5, 2007: H Clinton: Planning Advisory Aug 31, 2007: Hillary Brings Fall Campaign to Jersey Aug 29, 2007: Clinton to Attend DSC Conference Aug 14, 2007: Clinton Names Kominsky [New Jersey State Director]
June 27, 2007: When Elizabeth Met Ann June 22, 2007: Albio for Hillary June 12, 2007: Menendez & H Clinton [endorsement]
June 8, 2007: The counting's done...it's $2.1 million!!! [announcing Clinton fundraiser results]
June 5, 2007: Bill Clinton June 1, 2007: President Clinton
Only two of these - one about Elizabeth Edwards (June 27) and another about Rudy 9u11iani (Nov 1) - were not about Hillary Clinton or her husband [Update: The first 3 of these emails in early June were about a fundraiser unrelated to presidential politics].
It's possible this is a failing of the non-Clinton campaigns to take advantage of the DSC resources the way they could or should be doing. Have they reached out to the DSC and requested that their news be circulated to the media, too? I don't know if they have on a regular basis, but I do know that the DSC has received at least one Obama-related press release, and did not forward it to the media (or at least, did not forward it to us at Blue Jersey). It seems quite likely that the campaigns no longer bother to ask because they assume the answer is "No." If that's the unspoken message being sent by the DSC, that's even worse.
But even if the other campaigns are dropping the ball, that's no excuse. Regardless of any endorsements, the Democratic party's role is to advocate for Democratic party candidates, not to play favorites in a primary.
John Edwards enjoys the support of Senators Dick Codey and Joe Vitale. Barack Obama has been endorsed by Bill Bradley, Congressman Steve Rothman, Senator Loretta Weinberg and Mayors Cory Booker and Jerramiah Healy. I didn't receive notice about any of these things from the DSC, but I did get a one-line email on Jan 10th telling me who the New Jersey for Hillary media contact is. I'm also on Hillary Clinton's campaign press list, and I did not receive this particular email from them, so it doesn't appear to be a forward, but rather an original email. By contrast, an email received the day before titled "Hillary News Call-In" was the same as one received directly from the Clinton campaign. So it appears some of these emails are forwards while others are not.
The stated reason for moving up our primary was to make New Jersey relevant in the presidential nomination process. Success! New Jersey voters are being paid more attention (and respect) by the presidential candidates than ever before.
For example, Barack Obama recently visited the state for a rally attended by thousands. And yet, the state party didn't see fit to share that news with the media. They also didn't use their official email list to inform rank-and-file Democrats of the visit. How can it be that a viable, high-profile presidential candidate comes to the state for a free rally, but neither the media nor the voters are told about it?
While polls have shown Clinton with a healthy lead in New Jersey, the activist class of the Democratic Party has largely bucked that trend. In early December, John Edwards won a mock caucus with Barack Obama coming in a close second. A straw poll conducted in Montclair earlier this week showed Obama with almost twice the support of Clinton and Edwards. Just yesterday, the Princeton Community Democratic Organization held an endorsement vote where Barack Obama received 48%, Hillary Clinton 31% and John Edwards 9% (nobody received the 60% required for a formal endorsement).
None of this is meant to suggest that the party should be pushing either Edwards or Obama instead. They shouldn't. But by apparently promoting one candidate over another, the state party appears to be completely out of touch with their own activist base. I would argue that is a dangerous position for any political party to put itself in.
I have been told that those emails about the presidential campaigns sent out by the communications director are sent from a personal email address, not an "official" email address, meaning that they're not "official" DSC communications.
But the official press releases - the ones that list the communications director as the contact - are sent from the very same "personal" email address. It begs the question: How are media who receive these emails supposed to know what is an "official" DSC press release and what is not? On the other hand, since all these press releases come from a personal email address and if none of them are "official" and part of the job, is the communications director being placed in an untenable position of not being able to distinguish between his own personal emails and those the DSC will stand behind?
This all seems too convoluted by half, and the complex explanations seem like the DSC trying to have it both ways.
Two more points. I'm not alleging or even hinting that anything illegal has occurred. I don't think that's the case. But I believe it's unfair for the party to give preferential treatment to one candidate over all others. Finally, I understand that this is just the way things have always been done, and I know that for many people I'm not breaking any news here. Overcoming this kind of institutional inertia isn't easy, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. If this party wants to remain relevant, it needs to become more open, fair, responsive and (small-d) democratic.
UPDATE:Dick Codey announces he's staying with John Edwards because he's the right candidate for our time. This had to be written and planned before Nevada since it was in this morning's paper, meaning he agrees Edwards should go on regardless of last night's outcome.
I back John Edwards, and want him to become President. However, after he lost both NH and IA then polled four percent in Nevada yesterday the odds are incredibly long. Anyone who is looking at this race pretty much has to admit that.
But neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton is running away with this one. It looks like the delegate race is really close, Hillary is leading national polls and Obama has some leads in important upcoming states. There is a great possibility that this will result in a brokered convention with no nominee until then.
And that's why, despite all the urging by Obama supporters, I still support John Edwards in the Democratic Primary and suggest that anyone who wants to see this party and its platform move to the left do the same. Don't abandon him on February 5 so you can be with the eventual winner.
If you believed in his positions, in his fight, in his temperament, in his history, in his mission before he started falling behind then you have a chance to continue the fight for all these things by staying the course. Even if you think Edwards can't win, the things he and we stand for can if we don't back down and do some bandwagon jumping on Feb. 5.
With only 4% of the delegates chosen; the "score", so far, is Obama 25, Clinton 24, and Edwards 18.
It's way too early to ask Edwards to "drop out" as some here have called for.
I've actually said (as I recall) that if Edwards were to fail to win South Carolina (his birthplace) he should drop out and throw his support to Obama. It seemed sensible enough on the surface. After all, wouldn't all of Edwards voters then rush to support Obama over Clinton?
As it turns out, that may not be the case. Here's .
an interesting set of exit polls in which New Hampshire Edwards voters express their second choices/preferences.
A new Monmouth University poll of likely NJ primary voters conducted January 9-13 (MoE +/-4.5%) shows Barack Obama closing the gap between himself and frontrunner Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, the poll shows John McCain now narrowly leading Rudy 9iu11iani 29%-25%, a huge shift from October when the New York mayor led 44%-12%.
Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll (Jan 9-13, Likely voters, MoE +/-4.5%) (trend: Oct 07, Apr 07 in parenthesis)
Among likely Democratic primary voters in New Jersey, Hillary Clinton currently claims support from 42% of voters, compared to 30% for Barack Obama, 9% for John Edwards, and 2% for Dennis Kucinich. Another 17% remain undecided. Support levels for Clinton, Edwards and Kucinich are nearly identical to what they registered in the October 2007 poll. However, Obama's support has increased by 7 percentage points on the heels of his strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"Senator Obama's early win in Iowa has swung some previously undecided New Jersey voters into his camp, but Senator Clinton's support among rank and file Democrats here remains strong," commented Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.
Clinton leads 45%-26% among Democrats, 46%-23% among whites, 44%-30% among those 35-54 and 47%-23% among those 55 and up. Obama attracts more independents by a margin of 44%-27%, leads among blacks and Hispanics 48%-26%, and leads 46%-30% among 18-34 year-olds. Based on poll internals, Obama's support appears considerably weaker than Clinton's.
It's 30 days until our Presidential Primary, but for folks in New Hampshire it's just 24 hours.
Fortunately we can get a look at how progressives up there in the Granite State are seeing the race through our kissing-cousin site, "Blue Hampshire."
It's a great site that has a ton of information on what is happening on the ground. Their front pagers are actively working on the campaigns and are posting in their free time about what they are seeing. Diarists are putting up information that you will see nowhere else, not even on the big blogs like Kos and MyDD.
So visit Blue Hampshire to see how things are shaping up for this first in the nation primary, and to get the post-mortems after the results are out there.
Elizabeth Edwards in Princeton with event hosts Stacy Mann, Lisa Fischetti, and Carol Golden.
A fund-raiser at a (magnificent) private home in Princeton last night - featuring Elizabeth Edwards - drew an impressive crowd of supporters, and raised more than $50,000 nearly $60,000 to support her husband's campaign.
I was fortunate enough to attend, and I spoke with Mrs. Edwards upon her arrival. She looked great, and has a wonderful warm and casual manner that made me instantly comfortable and at ease.
After a short conversation, I told her someone would be contacting her about this thing called "Blue Jersey Radio" - and she said, without hesitation: "I'll say yes" (smile). In this year of the remarkable potential first-spouses, Elizabeth is a real asset to the campaign. We'll definitely be in touch. Stay tuned.
I did have to leave early, because - like the Governor - I had to get to Piscataway for the RU Women's basketball game. For some more detail, and another photo with a very special guest last night, click on over.
Below are the 3Q fundraising totals that each presidential candidate raised in NJ. Clinton blew everyone else away, beating NJ GOP darling Rudy Giuliani by a quarter million dollars. She raised three times more than her nearest Democratic rival Barack Obama. Surprisingly, Edwards comes in fourth with about $100,000, behind Bill Richardson with $125,000.
The fundraising totals for the Democrats closely follow the polls in state. The latest Quinnipiac poll showed Clinton leading with 45% of the vote - three times that of Obama's 15% and Edwards with just 7% (other polls have similar margins).
