Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Emphasizes Loan was 'My Money'

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Perry Bacon Jr.
ARLINGTON -- In a 15-minute press conference at her Virginia campaign headquarters, Sen. Hillary Clinton said the $5 million she contributed to her campaign last month was "my money," and declined to say if she would put in any more.

"I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign," Clinton said. "We had a great month fundraising in January, broke all the records, but my opponent was able to raise more money and we intend to be competitive. The results of last night proved the wisdom of my investment."

Investment was a common theme in her remarks, as she also emphasized the importance of winning big states. "Clearly the number of delegates to be harvested from big states like New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey and California and Texas and Ohio make them particularly attractive, because there's a lot of return on your investment," Clinton said. Her campaign sees Texas and Ohio's votes on March 4 as more likely wins for her than the series of less populous states that vote in February.

Several reporters asked about the Virginia primary, coming up on Feb. 12. Obama has been endorsed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, but Clinton said that didn't worry her. She used the moment to brag about her win last night in Massachusetts, where Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Gov. Deval Patrick had endorsed Obama to great fanfare, while Clinton easily won the primary.

"I recall the governor and both senators in Massachusetts endorsed my opponent," Clinton said. "I think we'll do fine."

Preparing for the so-called Potomac primary -- Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland will all vote on the same day -- she noted that she believes the District "should be a state." "Let's call it two-and-half states," she said.

While not directly suggesting Obama's wins in caucus states weren't as important as her own wins, she said, "primaries are far more democratic," adding "my husband, I don't think he won a caucus."

Clinton also said Obama's stronger numbers among men should not be interpreted an impediment if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

"Democrats are used to a gender gap," Clinton said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 6, 2008; 5:40 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Endorsement Post-Mortem
Next: Internet Donors Fuel Obama

Comments

dpchen888 and the rest talking of spinning fairytales. I grew up in Park Ridge where Hillary did. Unless her pastor was refering to the children of the maids, there were no migrant workers. It isn't like the once toney suburb of Chicago was out in the farm fields or anything. So once again repeat the lie eventually someone will start believing itis true.Maybe her camp can produce the one room log cabin she was born in too.

Posted by: loki924 | February 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Clinton this....Obama that....What difference is it really going to make after McCain is elected President of The United States of America?

Need a hint??? NONE!

Posted by: w4ain | February 8, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

davestickler,

You've made it pretty clear that you're pro-Obama to the point of twisting the facts. In the Senate, "sponsored" just means attaching your name to a piece of legislation, it doesn't mean you did any work at all and your contention that he "authored" all of this legislation is simply not true. Just practically, how did he do it? In between campaign rallies? What work he has done is to attach his name to as much legislation as possible to pad his resume against the real weakness of a lack of experience.

In her years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton has developed a hard-earned reputation as a work horse, even with her conservative Republican colleagues. Actually doing the work to move and craft legislation through the Senate, regularly working with Republicans who have been nothing but brutal to her. If this race comes down to experience and work ethic, Hillary wins hands down every time.

Posted by: bjwl43 | February 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

"deeds over words," mikel1. You're right.

Compare the Clinton and Obama Senate records, and you'll find that Sen. Clinton's claim to being the "doer" in the race is, well, only words.

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

funny some are spinning obama's major defeat in CA as dueto absentee voting blah blah blah.

clinton won because the majority chose track record over inexperience, deeds over words, work over promises. we don't need any more fairy tales. this is lalaland. we can spot a fake.

end of story.

Posted by: mikel1 | February 7, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

maryfoleyrn, if you're interested in substance, Congressional records can be found on the Library of Congress site. Here's a summary (written by fellow poster p3ng) of Obama and Clinton's Senate records:


"OBAMA RECORDS

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

The list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . .

CLINTON RECORDS

Senator Clinton, who has served one full term (6yrs.) has managed to author and pass into law 20 twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system."

Anyhow, judge for yourself which candidate is the candidate of substance.

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is doing just fine with her fundraising- no worries there. She has grassroots support across the country, and won in states that will need to be in the Democratic column next November. Men and women support both candidates- that is good for the process right now. Let's see some more debates between them. Let's find out more about the Barack Obama behind the rock star image. Let's hear some substantive ideas about the future. How about the economy, health care, and national security. Let's start focusing on John McCain and pulling this party together. There seems to be alot of very deep rooted anti-Hillary sentiment expressed in these messages. Whatever side you are on now, we need a Democrat in the White House, as speaker, and president of the Senate.

Posted by: maryfoleyrn | February 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

arwilson: The source of the Clintons' income is spelled out in the story. Since you obviously didn't read the story you have nothing worth listening to here.

Posted by: higginsrj | February 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Brianne, I'm curious. Do you have equally detailed and researched "explanations" for any other states Sen Obama lost? Any to explain states lost by Sen Clinton?

Posted by: zukermand | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Suggestion to Hillary:

If you want people to take you seriously and not attribute your campaign to your husband, then stop mentioning him everytime you speak. Until, I will continue to look at your candidacy as a co-presidency. Billary '08 is not something I can support.

Posted by: brianne | February 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"You cult folks better beware. Monday, all
I read about was that humongous ground swell of the Obomite. Jumped ahead in Cal. by 7 points. Catching up in Mass. May even catch her in her homestate, NY. You lemmings didn't learn in NH did you. Out of Money. Broke. She is the underdog now. Remember John McCain, a few months ago. Broke and done. Guess what. Go women. Give them Hell. This man is supporting you. Go Hilliary."

Obama lost California for 2 reasons:

1. Absentees ballots started pouring in a month before the primary. A month before the primary, Obama was down 20 points in CA. His stake in absentee ballots was slim.

2. Unregistered supporters. It's a fact that Obama surged in CA the last week leading up to the primary, but a lot of his support came from young voters: young voters who were not registered to vote. In CA, you had to be registered 2 weeks prior to the Primary. Obama's support surged the last week before the primary so he may have been packing in the supporters at rallies, but unfortunately, a lot of those people were technically too late to jump on the wagon for him.

I will not count Hillary out until I hear it from her mouth that she's out. The Clintons have support that come out of the ground to vote. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm still terrified she'll someone pull it out. Let's hope not.

Posted by: brianne | February 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Need Obama campaign materials (posters, signs, etc.) for upcoming primary?

Have Obama campaign materials from an already completed primary?

Go to http://www.ObamaCycle.com/ and you can post need/have messages. It's free. The Obama campaign website is bogged down with traffic (maybe that $7MM raised in the past couple of days has something to do with it!). Hopefully this will help and it will make sure there is less waste.

Posted by: furqan | February 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"keep in mind that Howard Dean and Ron Paul raised lots of Internet money once upon a time, and how far did that get them?"

Er, a lot further than they would have without it? You're right, more money does not equal victory, but it does help make the more (relatively) outsider candidate remain competitive with the wealthier/better known/better organized one.

Posted by: rokedog | February 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I was not the one who claimed: "In the 24 hours after Super Tuesday, we in the Obama campaign challenged ourselves to raise $5 million to match Hillary's campaign "loan" to herself." My point was that no one on the Obama side could have been "challenged" for the first 18 of those 24 hours based on the simple fact no one outside the Clinton knew about it.

No doubt, AFTER Hillary announced her loan, both campaigns have used that fact to raise more money -- Hillary claims to have raised $3-4 million yesterday too, so she's not going to run out of money anytime soon -- keep in mind that Howard Dean and Ron Paul raised lots of Internet money once upon a time, and how far did that get them?

Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Watched the video.
Two observations:
1. The only emphasis on "my money" comes from the reporter
2. At 30 seconds, it sounds very much like Bacon says Sen Clinton "sort of won" Massachusetts. Huh?

Posted by: zukermand | February 7, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Sheesh, after reading this article I can't understand why Hillary is having trouble raising money:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e

You'd think these guys would be able to scrape up a few mil more somewhere!

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Ooops, make that $7,595,926 since I started writing that last post... Is $60K every five minutes a good rate of contributions? LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Here's the text of an email that I received at 7:16 last night. (And please note that the campaign has raised more than $4 million since it was sent out, on top of the $3 million already raised since the polls closed in California Tuesday night, for a total of $7,535,303 so far. And still climbing.) You tell me if you consider it a "challenge" or not:

Dear XXXXXXXXXX,

I was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news.

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.

Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.

We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.

To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.
The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.
Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.

We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $50 right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.

This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.
We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.

And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change -- and that you are the force to make that change happen.

But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.

We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.

Please make a donation of $50 now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:

Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November

Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender -- including 64% of women in Georgia

We scored wins in every region of the country -- New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.

Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.

Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

rwilson and ched:

Most of the Clinton's estimated $40 million net worth came after they left the White House (speaking fees and book deals). Since I am backing Mitt Romney at this point, I can hardly take issue with a "measly" $5 million loan, can I?

Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if critics of Sen Clinton here are aware of how much of their vitriol is based on speculation, or how mean they sound?

Posted by: zukermand | February 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm troubled by her use of the term "investment," which of course implies that she expects a financial return on that money.

When I was living in S.E. Asia, vote buying was also referred to as "investing" in votes, with the clear implication that the "return" came when one was able to exploit the office for financial gain, whether it be through the sale of public works projects or commissions on everything else.

I wonder, too, what interest rate she's paying herself for the loan, and just how someone accumulates $5 million on a Senator's salary in the first place, especially since she didn't have an job for over a decade prior to that.

Posted by: ched | February 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

So her 35 years of experience obviously did not prepare her to balance a budget or efficiently lead an organization.

Posted by: RollaMO | February 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

What I would like to know is how an alleged public servant earning $200,000 per year or so accumulated sufficient assets in 8 years to be able to "loan" 5 million in the first place?

Posted by: arwilson | February 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

It's really a shock to learn that Hillary had to loan her campaign $5 million. She had been assured a victory and she did not plan her budget. She did not consider that she would campaign all the way to late August and Denver, and she ran out of money before February 6. She did not manage her campaign's budget wisely.
Now the question is: Are we to believe that she will manage the U. S. Budget wisely and that she will, someday, get it to a surplus? Is she going to blame someone else by not being able to "intelligently" manage the U. S. Budget?
She constantly says that she is the best prepared candidate from A to Z, but she seems that budget-wise, she got as far as "B" (for Budget) and then flopped. This infallible candidate has FAILED. We better be careful who we entrust the management of our Nation's budget, and perhaps the rest of the alphabetical list of duties and responsibilities she will face.

Posted by: esther_624 | February 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

All the Clintons' self-funding has done is energized Obama's supporters, who know he doesn't have the same resources. (Apparently, he's doesn't have a secret Kazakhstan fund like they do.) As of 6:30 am Pacific Time, Obama's supporters have donated $7 million.

Posted by: junkmail | February 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

BUSTED ON GMA

HILLARY ON WALMART

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA

BUSTED ON GMA

HILLARY ON WALMART

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA

BUSTED ON GMA

HILLARY ON WALMART

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 7, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The $5 million HAS to be a loan. The Clintons are subject to the same campaign finance laws as everyone else--$2,300 per person, per season (primary and general), max.

Posted by: kparrparr | February 7, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse


FROM THE VOTO LATINO WEBSITE : CLINTON VOTED FOR THE USE OF CLUSTER BOMBS

Clinton, Obama, and Cluster Bombs

by David Rees

If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.

It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall, and it has been my pleasure and my honor to donate the royalties from the two GYWO anthologies to Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5, a landmine removal team in western Afghanistan.

[...]
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

[...]

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against:...one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

http://blog.votolatino.org/

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 7, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

If she can't campaign with the donations from the American people then she should drop out. I have never understood why there are no restrictions on an individual self funding their own campaign. It opens up the possibility of someone being able to buy an election.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Why does she call it a "loan"? Why not give it to campaign? Does she expect to paid back with interest? What rate? Are all new donations now going to her bank account to pay her back?

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

maq1:

Campaign finance reform violates the spirit of the First Amendment.

cpaustin408:

The caucus can actually MAXIMIZE the influence of small States -- 20,000 participated in small State caucus but 200,000 participate in a larger State primary -- they have roughly the same delegates nonetheless.

whatmeregister and drama_king:
Keep in mind that Howard Dean and Ron Paul raised lots of Internet money too. You, in the Obama campaign, could not have "challenged ourselves to raise $5 million to match Hillary's campaign 'loan' to herself" for the simple fact that none of you knew there was a $5 million 'loan' until 18 hours after Super Tuesday. Try again.

Posted by: JakeD | February 7, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn't stop me from spending all the money I've saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform," - Bill Clinton, December 24, 2007.

Posted by: maq1 | February 7, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

If I were a voter in one of the "smaller" states that has a primary approaching, I believe I would not be impressed by Sen. Clinton disparaging the importance of the smaller states as opposed to the "large" states. I would feel that my support was just as valuable as the support of someone in a big state. I think her comments are intended to minimize the importance of the remaining primaries in February, where she may not do as well as she expects to do in Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: cpaustin408 | February 7, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Oops, $6,172,475 now...

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama has raised $6,125,520 from the time the polls closed yesterday night until this evening. I wonder if there's a way to make this link a widget? Hmmm...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 7, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

In the 24 hours after Super Tuesday, we in the Obama campaign challenged ourselves to raise $5 million to match Hillary's campaign "loan" to herself.

I am proud to report that we once again exceeded expectations: WE RAISED SIX MILLION DOLLARS for Obama before midnight!!!
(for those keeping track, it took Hillary two weeks to raise that much in her best month of fundraising)

GO OBAMA! GO AMERICA! YES WE CAN!!!

Posted by: drama_king | February 7, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

bnw13,

The argument that Obama is now the "establishment" candidate and that Clinton is the "change" candidate of the Democratic nominees, is not only silly, but insulting to all Blue folk.

Endorsements do not matter in the general from our own party. Heck, they barely matter in it. How many people vote based on a newspaper's editorial? (Sorry WaPo) How many people say "oh Spider-man likes Hillary, that changed my mind." Your point is trivial at best, and enraging to try to wait for it... "swift boat" Barack Obama's campaign into something it is not.

Now my guy is Obama, but that does not mean we cannot have a civil debate. However records, donations, and momentum clearly show Obama is a stronger candidate than Clinton. While Hillary does have many strengths, such as "experience" and women appeal, it does not match up well.

So let please stick to the empirical data. And leave the mudslinging to the GOP.

Posted by: nddicola | February 6, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"My" money as opposed to "His" money. I think we are back to what the definition of the word "IS" is. Anyway what's the difference? Oh that's right, it looks bad if we find out the a former President of the US, ( who now has lucrative consulting contracts with foreign countries to outsource American jobs), is contributing to "Her" failing campaign.

Posted by: vitaletti101 | February 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama has came close to matching Clintons 5 million in ( just 24 hours )........LOL......it is pretty clear who has the mojo , and the thing is , Obama is funding his campaign with real every day folks that are not even close to being maxed out.

Now some of Clintons people are working for free.

This thing will be over within the next month , Obama is going to put her away in the upcoming states.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 6, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Picture of many words- Last weekend I watched one of Obama's speeches(sermon) where he talked about hope and change. Change the climate in Washington, new direction in Washington. passing of the torch of change in Washington. Sounded great. Very inspiring . It almost left a tear in my eye. Then all at once the vision on the screen hit me, There stood Obama at the podium. On his right stood white haired Ted Kennedy and on his left stood John Kerry. Change in Washington. Right. Go Hillary

Posted by: bnw173 | February 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

You cult folks better beware. Monday, all I read about was that humongous ground swell of the Obomite. Jumped ahead in Cal. by 7 points. Catching up in Mass. May even catch her in her homestate, NY. You lemmings didn't learn in NH did you. Out of Money. Broke. She is the underdog now. Remember John McCain, a few months ago. Broke and done. Guess what. Go women. Give them Hell. This man is supporting you. Go Hilliary.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 6, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

"The traffic at barackobama.com *seems* to have overwhelmed *their* servers right now."

Oops.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, after reading the news about Hillary's new self-infusion of cash to her campaign, I went and gave another $50 myself. I wonder if that was the effect she was hoping the announcement would have? LOL

By the way, I must not be the only one digging a bit deeper to give. The traffic at barackobama.com seem to have overwhelmed servers right now. Gotta love it!

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 6, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

By the way I don't know if any of you know this but this $5M was for the fight already waged and not for the fight ahead.
Actually that $5M no longer exists...
Now that's a HUGE problem.
"That sort of raises an eyebrow at her position paper issued last October when she said: "After six and a half year of President Bush"s fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses.""
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=520#comments

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 6, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lfahnest

Really good point. I wouldn't donate to a candidate that wouldn't take a risk with me.

Posted by: chick1 | February 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Just to repost what I thought was an interesting insight into the Clintonian ability to morph at a moment's notice, check this out from a stump speech Bill gave in Iowa last December:

"[Clinton] railed against the Supreme Court for blocking some attempts to limit the influence of money in politics.

" 'We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.'

"And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy.

" 'For example, they say you couldn't stop me from spending all the money I've saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,' he said."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7548.html

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 6, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Aaaggh, sorry about the double-posting earlier!

But I wanted to add on one more thing. dpchen, you mentioned that, "[o]ne of the most important lessons that I have learned in life is to judge people by what they do and not by what they say."

Hardly over a month ago, Bill Clinton said that, if the Clintons gave to their own campaign, it "would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform." Yet, not a month later, look what they did.

Hillary Clinton likes to talk about how she's been beating the Republicans for years. But she's only been elected twice in her life -- both times in the friendly deep blue of New York.

And Hillary likes to say that she's the only candidate who will get universal health care done. But she already had a shot in the '90s, and her effort utterly failed to enact universal health care.

Hillary says she didn't want to go to war unless inspections were completed. But, when she had the chance to withhold authority to invade until after inspections had had a chance, she voted "no".

So yes, it does matter what you do.

And drama king, thank you so much for the kudos!

Posted by: davestickler | February 6, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

davestickler, I am copying and pasting into a file on my desktop what you just wrote. It was a succinct and powerful argument in favor of Obama, and, secondarily, against Hillary.

Posted by: drama_king | February 6, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I take it New York is not a "community property" State?

Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

dpchen888, you're right. Let's make this election about who's done more. Take Barack Obama.

In Illinois, he authored and passed the most significant ethics reform in a generation. He expanded health care access. He reformed the criminal justice system to reduce convictions of innocent people -- a politically hazardous proposition which involved his winning over legislators, police, and a governor who were all originally unwilling to touch the topic.

In the US Senate, he's improved our program to deal with what Kerry and Bush both said was the greatest security threat to America -- loose nuclear weapons -- and to lock down old Soviet conventional arms as well. He's worked on creating a plan for dealing with an avian flu epidemic. He helped write major ethics reform, and wrote and passed the "Google for government" bill that creates transparency and accountability in government spending. His record is deep and suggests someone who's both able to work across party lines, and is interested in taking on big issues, even if they aren't well-known or easy.

In his younger days, he was a community organizer, improving housing, helping create access to work for the poor, and registering thousands of new voters.

In law school, he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious position a law student can hold. Heck, he's even a best-selling author.

Point is, Barack Obama has been successful in everything he's tried. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who has no major legislation to her name in her eight years in the Senate; whose major responsibilities in the Clinton administration ended in a string of disastrous legal appointments and in the utter failure to enact universal health care; and who voted the wrong way on the most important vote of her Senate career.

If you want competency, your vote should go to Obama.

Posted by: davestickler | February 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

dpchen888, you're right. Let's make this election about who's done more. Take Barack Obama.

In Illinois, he authored and passed the most significant ethics reform in a generation. He expanded health care access. He reformed the criminal justice system to reduce convictions of innocent people -- a politically hazardous proposition which involved his winning over legislators, police, and a governor who were all originally unwilling to touch the topic.

In the US Senate, he's improved our program to deal with what Kerry and Bush both said was the greatest security threat to America -- loose nuclear weapons -- and to lock down old Soviet conventional arms as well. He's worked on creating a plan for dealing with an avian flu epidemic. He helped write major ethics reform, and wrote and passed the "Google for government" bill that creates transparency and accountability in government spending. His record is deep and suggests someone who's both able to work across party lines, and is interested in taking on big issues, even if they aren't well-known or easy.

In his younger days, he was a community organizer, improving housing, helping create access to work for the poor, and registering thousands of new voters.

In law school, he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious position a law student can hold. Heck, he's even a best-selling author.

Point is, Barack Obama has been successful in everything he's tried. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who has no major legislation to her name in her eight years in the Senate; whose major responsibilities in the Clinton administration ended in a string of disastrous legal appointments and in the utter failure to enact universal health care; and who voted the wrong way on the most important vote of her Senate career.

If you want competency, your vote should go to Obama.

Posted by: davestickler | February 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the more I learn about Hillary, the more I like her.

She may talk like a politician, but I feel she genuinely cares for others. Her childhood pastor tells an story on NPR about how as a 14 year old teen, Hillary started a babysitting brigade to watch the children of migrant workers who could not afford childcare. Thoughout her life, she has been committed to children's causes and healthcare.

Obama uses a lot of rhetoric, but there's not a lot of substance. I have yet to hear anything really meaningful come from him that would sway me. One of the most important lessons that I have learned in life is to judge people by what they do and not by what they say.

If Obama eventually becomes the nominee, I hope that people are prepared for a rude awakening. He's not as nice a person as he makes himself to be. People that know him personally describe him as arrogant, and that shows through every once in a while in the debates and interviews.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/

He is the one who said that Hillary's supporters will vote for him; but his supporters will not vote for her if nominated.

Hillary may have learned to talk like a politician to succeed; but Obama too is a politician. I was reminded of that when I saw Obama campaigning with Ted Kennedy, the 2nd longest sitting senator, all the while touting "CHANGE."

Posted by: dc210 | February 6, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

There's something I don't understand. She is LOANING her money to her campaign, vs. DONATING it? She needs and wants other people to donate to her campaign but wants to be reimbursed for her contribution? Why would anyone contribute to a candidate who won't put their own skin in the game. She and Bill have millions and are quite capable of generating more millions in the future (books, speaking fees, etc). I must be missing something here.

Posted by: lfahnest | February 6, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if it was "her" money. It still is a bad sign for a struggling campaign.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 6, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton also said Obama's stronger numbers among men should not be interpreted as an impediment if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

"Democrats are used to a gender gap," Clinton---

My God Woman, have you know shame? Democrats are used to a gender gap?

The man they voted for is a Democrat

The men that voted for him are democrats? So you're saying they're all chauvinists? Naive way to disparage half the Democratic Party...play the 'gender gap' card on em...

And, to make an analogy so as to shed light on how inappropriate that comment was, it is the same as if Obama claimed that the only reason Clinton got the Hispanic/Asian vote is because 'Democrats are used to Racism"

I find myself disliking Hilary Clinton as a human being the more this election goes on; she is a nothing but a political machine.

Soulless, lifeless, insincere.

Realpolitik to the extreme.

Posted by: wprp | February 6, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company