Fundraising Efforts For Both Democratic Candidates About Even
An article published by the New York Times has indicated that the amount of donations received by Senator Barack Obama for his bid at democratic candidacy is comparable to the amount received by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The article lacks concrete figures, but says that he came from behind to raise an amount that is close to that put forth by Clinton. The article traces Obama's political career and past fundraising efforts, ending by saying that several large Clinton supporters have become donators to his compaign and that Obama is actually favored in Clinton's hometown of Chicago.
The article suffers a bit due to not really talking about what the headline mentions. It's essentially an overview of Obama's political career up to this point, with quotes from those involved in his past efforts and successes testifying in his favor, for the most part. The article opens with a type of narrative that resents a situation comparable to now that took place in 2002, with Obama running for senator and in a position without a lot of funding. It then connects the story to the present day, outlines that, and then jumps back into a history of his political career. There is attribution used in the article from those who have worked with him, but Obama himself denied to be interview for the piece.
An article on the same subject written with the Associated Press ran in Forbes and focuses much more on the situation at hand. It lists the amount of donations Obama received as being 25 million, compared to Clinton's 26 million donations. It also says that Obama's donations came from 100,000 people, half of whom used the internet. After establishing key information, it explains each candidate's donation solicitation strategy and generally confines itself to talking about this particular situation happening right now, going really in-depth about the process of fundraising and earning donations for each candidate.
I prefer the Associated Press article because it contains specifics and actually talks about each candidate's fundraising. The New York Times piece is longer and probably researched more, but it's much more of an overview of Obama's political career than a slice of a current event, which is a problem. It doesn't list specifics and the main news point seems to be overshadowed by the rest of it, in my opinion.