This week's story will, no doubt, be the campaign financing releases.  Here are some thoughts on those numbers:

a)  Obama's $30M in March, given the lack of "excitement" -- e.g. few primaries after the early part of the month -- is pretty impressive.  Comparing it to the $55M raised in the wake of SuperTuesday and a host of other primaries is a strawman argument.

b)  The Clinton Campaign should be raked over the coals *hard* for not paying their employees health care benefits.  Yes, supposedly, these bills are now paid, but some were overdue by 2 months.

Why should Hillary be taken to task for this fiasco?

1)  Universal Health Care and mandatory participation is the cornerstone of her entire campaign.  This is called leading by example. It's the most basic form of leadership and Hillary either doesn't understand it or thought she wouldn't be caught or thought she was above it.  None of these options are comforting.  And, unlike other red-herring topics, this behavior is a direct reflection of what Hillary is about:  it's her campaign, it's her money management ideas, and it's her responsibility to set priorities.

2)  Her campaign is a business... and like any business it is subject to rules.  Small businesses can't get away with these shenanigans... there would be penalties for the rest of us.  This shows, yet again, her entitlement and elite attitude.  She definitely does *not* think of herself as one of us.

3)  She is hurting the Democratic cause.  Any Dem that puts Universal Health Care high on their list of priorities (disclosure, I'm not one of them), should be appalled by Hillary's behavior.  She is making the case for the GOP that businesses can't afford any such plan -- and Hillary, herself, couldn't stick to it.  Already, the cable pundits are using this as an example of another worthless *liberal* plan.  In other words, Hillary's gross failure here spatters mud on the Dem's and their general plans on health care.

I sincerely hope that no business extends credit to her campaign at this point -- they should demand cash on hand. 

I'm a believer that Hillary can continue to run (and the Democratic Leadership can denounce her as well if they wish).  But if Hillary continues to run, it should cost her supporters dearly -- with dollars.  If they aren't willing to pony up the dollars -- or figure out how to get others to do so -- there is the electablility issue right there.

Hillary is in a bind right now:  if she cuts back on expenses (a la McCain a year ago), it will be clear her campaign is finished.  However, I believe she is now playing the sucker game of good money after bad:  she would like to have a couple of decent showings to raise *more* money to pay off her previous debts.

It is a truism that no matter how passionate the supporters, all campaigns end and candidates withdraw when the money issue becomes unbearable.  No rule should be re-written for Hillary.  I do, however, allow her to continue to dupe business owners if they are foolish enough to extend her credit at this point.

It's ironic that this week Hillary's two main assets:

a) fund-raising/war chest

and

b)  name recognition

are being flushed down the tubes.

I just addressed the fund-raising and cash issue.  The name issue comes when Chelsea responded in a rally this week that people shouldn't either vote or not vote for her mother because of her father.

"Is a vote for Hillary a vote for Bill? No. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary," she said. "I'm really proud of what my father did in the '90s, but I don't think you should vote for or against my mother based on my father."

What happened to the two-fer?  What happened to the wise council and 8 years in the White House?

The tipping point is near.