Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Loaned Campaign $5 Million Last Month

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) loaned her presidential campaign $5 million at the end of last month, a cash infusion sure to stoke speculation that her once-vaunted fundraising operation is losing steam.

During a news conference at her campaign headquarters this afternoon, Clinton said the loan was "my money," and declined to say if she would put in more money. "I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign," she said.

Communications director Howard Wolfson said, "The loan illustrates Senator Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation," adding that "We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy."

Wolfson offered no comment when asked whether the loan was a one-time deal or whether Clinton was leaving open the option to again dip into her -- and her husband, former President Bill Clinton's -- personal wealth.

Wolfson confirmed that "some senior staff" including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle have "voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month" but would not offer any other names.

The revelation of the loan comes against a fundraising backdrop in which Clinton finds herself, somewhat amazingly, the underdog to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Obama raised better than $32 million last month alone -- dwarfing the $13.5 million Clinton collected in the same time frame.

Both candidates raised better than $100 million in 2007, but Obama's small dollar donor base was considerably wider, allowing him to continue to raise scads of campaign cash as the race goes along.

Heading into yesterday's Super Tuesday vote -- in which 22 states offered a split decision on the Democratic race -- both the Obama and Clinton campaigns were spending freely in hopes of securing the momentum today. The candidates largely fought to a draw, which, given Obama's current financial superiority, may well wind up as a victory for him when the history gets written.

Even as the dust settled on Super Tuesday, the practical effect of Obama's seeming financial advantage were being seen. The Illinois senator is on television already in all nine states -- Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii and Wisconsin -- that vote between this Saturday and Feb. 19. As of this morning the Clinton campaign was not yet on television in any of those states, although there could be ad buys going on as we type.

How Clinton's loan fits into the overall campaign narrative is hard to say. On the one hand, voters tend to be unconcerned about where a candidate's campaign cash comes from and aren't likely to be following the story all that closely. If Clinton needed the money to ensure much needed wins in places like California, New Jersey and Arizona, then it was money well spent.

On the other hand, Clinton's loan could well be painted as a sign that the campaign is struggling to stay competitive with Obama financially with a drawn out nomination fight still to come. If that story line comes to dominate, it could upset the current 50-50 balance of the race coming out of Feb. 5.

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

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 6, 2008; 5:20 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Spinning Super Tuesday
Next: What's Next?

Comments

It's likely that the loan will be repaid through the surge in on-line donations that resulted from this ploy by Billary to portray themselves as underdogs.Poor Billary is out of money so we need all you women to whip out your checkbooks and give your gender a hand lest those men beat her and we end up with 4-8 more years of men running the government.
Too bad Billary does not want Democrats to have any other visibility as regards their financial affairs.
Could releasing their tax returns expose their wheeling and dealing of political influence?
Why do the Clinton's not want to release their income tax returns UNLESS they get the Democratic nomination?
What is in them that they do not want Democratic voters to see until the General Election campaign?
They must believe that they would lose the support of some Democratic voters if these returns are made public while some Democratic primaries and caucuses are still to be decided.
What other reason would they have for continuing to with-hold their income tax returns until after (they hope) they have been nominated?

Posted by: claffiteau | February 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question: Does the fact that HRC loaned money to herself mean that donors to the Clinton campaign will be repaying the loan, rather than funding additional efforts? I would have a hard time giving to the campaign if that was the case. Is there an obvious reason that I'm not thinking of to explain why she wouldn't just fund herself outright? I noticed others touched on the issue in their comments, and I'm surprised members of the media haven't asked more probing questions about it.

Posted by: mandyn13 | February 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Ginzalez, you are a typical racist and the US DOES NOT NEED ANY MORE RACISTS. I hope you never get legalized. It is racists like you who are supporting Hillary Clinton, your ugly post is proof you have nothing to offer the US.

Shame on you Hillary Supporer.

Posted by: 357_gonzalez | February 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

idiots like rose88 will vote Hillary only because she is a white woman....tsk tsk! that or maybe she thinks the media is fawning over Obama...is this a reaosn to vote for Hillary?

and then these same idiots blame Obama supporters for being women haters.

Obama is raking in more money because he has more supporters who are more committed than possibly Hillarys.....you think?

Stop making this a race or gender issue just like your supremo leader Billary.

Posted by: 357_gonzalez | February 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

God bless Hillary, she is smart woman my whole famly I hoping she is become the president. Obama is a black man, and everyone knows black mans is not so smart, i so sorry but he cannot lead the big nation of the USA, so my family and community no supprt him, sorry. Hilary will win becoz she has so much supports from latino and from chinese peoples and other peoples from the world. I no say this from angry but black peoples in my country no smart and cannot do good job becoz they no civilize like white peoples. so we needs to think why admits who dont know why this inbvestigation for the border fence is affect the whole issues in some way, they all illegalz in this country so only democrats can help this bad situations for latino peoples.

Posted by: 357_gonzalez | February 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Rose 48809, with due respect why would I want to give up in the price of a cup of coffee to help Hillary Clinton. Have you forgot that when Bill left office he pardoned a drug king pin that was caught with 800 lbs. of pure cocine and given 15 years for it and Hillary's brother was then given $400.000 by this guy? You want more of this? Now that you will not have a lunch to eat maybe you might like to read the record of the Clintons during your lunch hour. Who will repay her the $5M?

Posted by: libre1118 | February 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

when are you bloggers and pundits going to go through the records and perform the analysis of primary vs general money and then match it against expeditures. it is speculated that perhaps as much as 35% of hillary's total is general money vs a much smaller percentage for obama. Likewise, her big horses are all tapped out while barack's are not. that's why she is lending the campaign money-it needs it. the clinton gang may also come to regret he hardball tactics they took in new york agains folks who raised for edwards and obama (some of hillary's campaign domos were quoted in the press as saying "we will remeber their bundlers") hinting at retribution then won't helpo them now to get money from those folks. I would also point out that lobbyists < who hillary likes, don't invest in losing causes

hillary faces a double barrelled threat of money and message that obama has vs a claim of competence but track record that may not match the claim (iraq, healthcare etc)

Posted by: richard.thaler | February 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

rayacop wrote:

Clinton has raised over 5 million...

=========

Well that would be enough to pay back the loan so they are back to $0.00.

Meanwhile Obama brought in about $8 million and growing since early Wednesday morning that is in addition to the $30M from January and Obama has no loans. Plus all Obama campaign staff are being fully paid. Advantage Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

'In a nation with a 45% divorce rate, we should not be looking at each divorce, but how each divorced person "manned up" or "womaned up" to treating the ex-spouse and the children. Drindl's real difficulty with RG is, to me, a lawyer, really well understood. Not so her criticism of the estrangement of an ex-POW from his wife that was followed by an uncontested divorce and a cordial post divorce relationship.'

this is true, mark. i didn't know that his divorce was uncontested. all i had heard-- and the press rarely mentions anything at all-- was that he left his wife [who had waited for him for 5 years, and raised the kids alone] for a hot young rich gal. and as for a settlement, he could afford to be generous.

all i am saying is that every republican on this blog trashes hillary clinton in often despicable ways, including outright lies, and then screams bloody murder if you say anything about McCain. he is probably a decent guy--but he ain't so saint, that's all i'm saying.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I just gave Hillary another $50.00, I figure I will just pack my lunches this month, and take my coffee to work with me....It's well worth the investment....she doesn't get the positive media attention that Obama gets...they fawn all over him....just because he makes pretty speeches??? WHERE'S THE BEEF....If everyone will give up buying their lunches and coffee at work and donate that money to Hillary, she will be ok..Of if you voted for her, or plan on voting for her, just donate $10.00....just think she won all the big states that are needed for Nov. with 1/2 of the money Obama had to win the red states....tell anyone anything???? Sure does me, RUN HILARY RUN

Posted by: rose48809 | February 7, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has raised over 5 million in less than 24 hours eclipsing Obama and more importantly Obama is refusing to have any further debates! What a coward! Hillary has already accepted five invites for debates while obama hides behind Oprah's skirt! America wants substance not a blowhard coward like Obama who is afraid to debate a woman who is clearly smarter and more experienced, hence more prepared to lead. Obama is a loser and a coward!

Posted by: rayacop | February 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

dixieeb --another illiterate moron. coming out of the woodwork today.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

i would like to give obama supporters something to think about why was someone from syria like rezko giving obama money syria is suppose to harbor a lot of terroist are terriost trying to gain access to the white house through obama and rezko it really needs to be checked out maybe since rezko is in jail they will find out why obama has had ties with him for such a long time and what the connection is betwwen them after all obama was raised in a muslim household maybe the truth will come forward before it is too late obama needs to be really checked out before he is given a pass i think the liberal media doesnt want americans to know what the connection between obama and rezko is they are sure keeping it under wraps for some reason and we need to know the truth about this connection why was rezko giving obama money to help him buy a house and fund his campaign we need to know the truth about obama and soon

Posted by: dixieb | February 7, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will never lack money. Years ago, she learned to trade pork bellies and made a mint overnight. Many politicians have an uncanny knack for acquiring great fortunes, despite selfless dedication to "public service." As a mayor of Mexico City once said, "A politician who is poor is a poor politician." Any "trickle down" naturally moistens the palms of those at the top first.

Posted by: jkoch2 | February 7, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

'Bsimon, If drindl's remarks are any indication, the gloves have come off when it comes to distorting the record and trashing a good man's name.'

what is distorted about it? what is not true? i'm not trying to 'trash a good man's name' -- if Hillary Clinton had left her husband for a rich younger man, I seriously doubt if you would hesitate to bring it up. the facts are the facts.

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

jimd52: One thing you can take to the bank is if Hillary does not get the nomination, A Repub, most likely McCain, will be occupying The Oval Office.

Posted by: lylepink | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM

I would counter that McCain WILL be president if he runs agains Clinton - that you can take to the bank.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"instead of coming home to be fodder for the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda and John Kerry who betrayed their country at the most critical time and only sought to serve themselves."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Do NOT equate opposition to the Vietnam War with what Jane Fonda did. What she did was despicable, travelling to North Vietnam, voicing support for the VC and N. Viets. She even ratted on a POW who tried to pass a message to her. That is unconscionable. BUT, opposing the war, as Kerry and countless other vets did was in the tradition of American democracy. It is not betrayal to oppose misguided US policy. That is in a long tradition that goes back to New England's opposition to the War of 1812 and Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican War.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

jimd52: One thing you can take to the bank is if Hillary does not get the nomination, A Repub, most likely McCain, will be occupying The Oval Office.

Posted by: lylepink | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

D) see Mark's 11:52 post

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

" Other dems disagree with you..."

A) I'm not a Dem.
B) Are those Dems impartial, or Clinton supporters?
C) Perhaps an IL source would be more appropriate to cite.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Trivia: Even though Obama won his state by a larger margin than Clinton, she carried more counties in his state than she did in hers.

Clinton won 13 in IL and tied three or four.

Obama won 1 county in NY

Posted by: LadyEagle | February 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Fits with who likes HRC and who likes BHO, I think."

mark, I can see this at work, as well... but Sen Obama still has a lot of 'splainin to do regarding his record, his votes, his credentials. So far there has been very little substance, all he's doing is spouting grand themes and pablum to adoring masses.

We have to inspect his record as a community organizer and a junior Senator in order to see what change he wants to bring; relying on vast rhetoric isn't enough. I don't believe that he has the capital like McCain does to reach consensus or build coalitions in Washington.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"The so-called maybe votes are a result of the way the IL senate works, not an indication of waffling or a lack of leadership"

bsimon, Other dems disagree with you...
Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York described it as evidence of a "lack of leadership" from Obama; Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio accused Obama of "avoiding taking stands on tough issues."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

CW at the time was that McC came back from prison camp a raw mess - who could blame him?

Unlike some we could think of, his divorce settlement with his first wife was generous to a fault, they remained friends, and he was a decent father.

In a nation with a 45% divorce rate, we should not be looking at each divorce, but how each divorced person "manned up" or "womaned up" to treating the ex-spouse and the children. Drindl's real difficulty with RG is, to me, a lawyer, really well understood. Not so her criticism of the estrangement of an ex-POW from his wife that was followed by an uncontested divorce and a cordial post divorce relationship.

proud, as bsimon notes, in the IL Lege, a "present" vote is tactical. That Planned Parenthood applauded and sought those votes while NOW opposed that strategy means to me that Planned Parenthood is smarter than NOW in IL. NOW was the organization using the
scorched Earth method of politics - think DeLay in reverse - while Planned Parenthood was saving its ammo for contests it could win. Fits with who likes HRC and who likes BHO, I think.

After BHO is nominated, if he is, I would like him to pick an issue of concern to conservatives and discuss how he would go about seeking a consensus movement on it,
to reflect that he is really able to approach consensus from the left as McC has proven again and again that he is from the right. JB would not have had to "prove" this for me. BHO does.

I leave HRC out of this conversation, as we speak.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

For all the sh*t I talk. I don't think I have bad mouthed mccain. He is gop and I do land blast the gop. But he fights against those who are lost in his party. Not as much as I would like of course.

Still if clinton wins the nom, I'm not voting. I can't vote gop until they vastly change their turn. Think ron paul with a domestic urge to improve america. If that ever happens I would vote r. I don't see it happening.

It's all about Obama this time. Unless he is the nom this independant AGAIN will not vote. That is the plan right gop. Disenfranchise as many americans as possible, right?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 7, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"123 'Maybe' votes in the Illinois Senate doesn't cut it, in my book."

You're falling into the same mindless criticism of which you just accused drindl. The so-called maybe votes are a result of the way the IL senate works, not an indication of waffling or a lack of leadership.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon, If drindl's remarks are any indication, the gloves have come off when it comes to distorting the record and trashing a good man's name.

I sincerely 'hope' that this scrutiny will be applied equally to the Ds new love interest, Sen obama. He has gotten a very little of it up to now, and it's high time we all took a closer look at just what his credentials are to be CIC.

123 'Maybe' votes in the Illinois Senate doesn't cut it, in my book. But, that kind of waffling and lack of leadership is not exactly surprising considering how liberal he is.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

proudtbeGOP writes
"This man of courage is a true patriot. Now the left will try to smear him once again, but it won't work."

Proud, it would seem that McCain has faced and will face more challenges from his own party than from 'the left'.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It's incredible how a year ago Obama started out far behind Clinton in the polls, name recognition and funding. Both Clintons have been known for having developed strong well-oiled political machine. Obama's ability to overcome the challenges posed by the Clintons and to catch up to Clinton is a testament to his skills, judgement and leadership ability.

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

JimD writes
"Despite [a litany of reasons why logic implies HRC would face a difficult challenge in trying to win the general election]"

lylepink responds
"Yes"

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

John McCain won my vote, and the vote of many others when, after two years in a N Vietnamese prison camp, he turned down an offer to be released early after his captors found out his dad was an Admiral in the US Navy. McCain chose to stay with his fellow POWs in the prison, instead of coming home to be fodder for the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda and John Kerry who betrayed their country at the most critical time and only sought to serve themselves.

Today, John McCain will be introduced at CPAC by Sen Coburn, and take the fight to the Democrats, explaining why he's against Harry Reid's defeatism, Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, Nancy Pelosi's obstructionism on intelligence gathering, Barack Obama's tax increases, and even Dennis Kucinich's Department of Peace.

This man of courage is a true patriot. Now the left will try to smear him once again, but it won't work.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I still maintain Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 2008.

Posted by: lylepink | February 6, 2008 11:37 PM

Despite the fact that polls show her decisively losing the critical indpendent vote to McCain? Despite the fact that polls show Obama decisively winning the critical independent vote against McCain? Despite all the evidence that the opportunity to vote against HRC is the only thing that might motivate a dispirited Republican base? Despite the stampede of red and purple state Democrats to Obama's side because they are terrified of the disasterous effect Hillary's nomination would have on down-ticket Democrats in those states and districts? Despite the overwhelming evidence that Obama is attracting new voters into the political process in unprecedented numbers? Virtually all pundits of the left and right agree on the FACT that nothing would boost Republican turnout like Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 7, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"..."People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."
"

Yes we can

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

claudia writes
"McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money"

Sounds pretty bad, when you put it that way. Personally, I don't really feel like I'm in a position to judge how a POW reacts when he returns home.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Odonnell - an injection of reality here.

Not by any means are all Obama supporters first-time voters. I have voted in every national, state, and local election in which I have been eligible to vote since the Nixon/Kennedy matchup. Glad I wasn't quite old enough to vote for that one because I would have voted for the wrong candidate to spite my parents. At that time, I was inexperienced and naive.

I repeat myself, but then, so do most of the posters here. The real and relevant value of the Obama candidacy is his ability to inspire the voting public. People who are inspired about something contribute to it. Inspiration energizes the electorate which is why this primary campaign is so interesting - even electrifying. My "hope" is that an energized electorate will translate into an energized public that will follow politics enough to have a real influence on changes that need to be made if our liberties are to survive. Too many of the last 2 generations have been uninterested and alienated as a result of watching the results as their parents (and then they) were almost completely disenfranchized by the machinations of the body politic and the lobbyists with whom they sleep.

Posted by: wwwqueen | February 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"..."People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."
"

Yes we can

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

boldbooks is simply wrong. The media never "lauded" mcain and romney for loaning to their campaigns. In fact, at the time, McCain was widely declared dead in the water by the media. The only "lauding" he got from the media was *after* he had already rebounded and the loan had clearly paid off strategically. I actually think Hillary and Obama are roughly equally qualified to be president. The difference is that Hillary's coattails in the general election are POISON. As someone deeply involved in NC state politics the damage a Hillary candidacy would do to the NC Democratic party which is currently going strong would be incalculable. Candidates like Heath Shuller and others in tight districts would be battered over the head with her. This is why "purple" state politicians in close districts are not coming out in favor of Hillary. She's the ONLY thing that can motivate the Republican base this cycle.

Posted by: CH1234 | February 7, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris - This is interesting stuff. What are the finances looking like on the Republican side? What will be effect of contested primary till the conventions? Will it create more news more ads and less chance to redefine the eventual candidate?

Posted by: bradcpa | February 7, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Using your own money does not, on its face, present any issues in that regard."

I agree; I don't really have an opinion on spending your own money on elections, though might argue that such candidates tend to be bad, when they do actually win elections. My anecdotal evidence would be former Sen Mark Dayton, of MN.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

claudialong - "'The NYT notes that, based on 2007 fund-raising figures, no one got a bigger bang for his bucks than Mike Huckabee."

Did the NYT not provide those figures for Dems or did that just not make your post? Perhaps putting those numbers in context next to each other might not have made as good a point.

Posted by: dave | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Oh, you want to talk about adultery/self financing?
'
McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. '

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

In Romney's case, I don't believe he "loaned" himself money; he "spent" his own money. No mention of a "loan" that I am aware of. Is there a difference here? Is Hillary going to collect interest on this "loan" should she get the nomination? [The mind boggles thinking of how.] I like the idea of candidates not being able to donate more than $2300 to their campaigns and agree with bsimon that Obama will continue to get support from small contributions.

Posted by: patwood | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Mark_in_austin,
Additional info and insight are always welcome. A lot of fed intervention is in the form of unfunded mandates, so I am told (NCLB comes to mind here). So there would be no money trail there from the Fed. Additionally, there are numerous national organizations from the NEA to the PTA and on that are advocates of various positions on a federal level (choice not being one of those). Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that, just that there is simply entrenched machinary in the mix that advocates for Federal solutions. I'm sure if the Feds got out of the education business, those groups would adapt.

Posted by: dave | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, to be clear:

the discussion about whether campaign contributions are speech is not what I've been referring to here recently. This discussion was about the 'fairness' of HRC being allowed to use 5m of her own sheckels to get back in the game.

If you have problems with unlimited contributions (of course for the record, I don't, as long as there is transparency), I could see that argument being made, because of the opportunity for corruption.

Using your own money does not, on its face, present any issues in that regard. And as Dave pointed out, money DOES NOT necessarily translate to votes. If it did, we'd have President Perot, President Forbes, even President Kennedy (the drunk, not the adulterer) etc.

Posted by: JD | February 7, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

And Obama just raised another 5 million in one night. What about all the poor and homeless in this country, this could sure use some of that cash. John Edwards was right to get out of this crazy campaign ...This guy OBAMA is begining to Freak me the hell out. I swear its reminding me of a CULT. I listened to his speech and was very weired out by that chick in the background that was swaying and crying like she was touched by the divine word, not to mention his words "We are the ones we've been waiting for," what the heck !!!

Posted by: democrat_2008 | February 7, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, Obama was dumped on as a "black", inexperienced, two-year senator that didn't amount to much more than a cocaine loving "Muslim" who shucks and jives,a middle named Hussein neophyte in cahoots with a slumlord.

You think the kid is afraid?

The kid moves like a butterfly, stings like a bee. And swims in a sea of millions, cash.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

dave, I don't disagree with your post. JD's comment, to which I responded hotly, is a continuation of his argument that campaign contributions are a form of free speech & that it is unfair to regulate such speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think that argument does not withstand scrutiny.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

uh oh...

'Top House Republicans were told in recent days that a former employee of their campaign committee may have forged an official audit during the contentious 2006 election cycle and that they should brace for the possibility that an unfolding investigation could uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years, according to GOP sources briefed on the members-only discussions.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has retained a forensic auditor to review its accounting for the last several election cycles, the sources said.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8349.html

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

brigettepj writes
"I am impressed that Sen Clinton was able to raise 13.5 million from average working people who support her overwhelmingly."

It is comical that you're comparing Sen Clintons's donors to Sen Obama's. You have your facts backwards. Sen Obama has raised money from far more donors, who are contributing small amounts, compared to Sen Clinton, who's donors are more likely to have contributed the maximum allowed by law. Simple math sets the example. The Senators Obama and Clinton, until January, raised comparable amounts of money. But Sen Obama's contributions have come from far more people. Therefore, Sen Obama's average donor has contributed less than Sen Clinton's.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

bsimon - "Should the richest candidate win elections? How about the candidate who has the richest friends?"
Money does not win elections. People, message, and enough money to communicate that win elections (provided the person and message connects with enough people). If that were not the case, we would not have spent the last 2 days pounding the nail into Romney's coffin or talking about the surprising Huckabee. That said, I don't know really what to think. I don't think that CFR helps end corruption in politics or makes candidates act any more ethically. I think it just forces pols and friends and supporters of pols to use money differently. That in and of itself will benefit certain types of fundraising more than others, just tilting an already unlevel playing field. People will always look for the loopholes or an advantage and push the boundaries of restrictions.

Posted by: dave | February 7, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

brigittepj, you are wrong in so many ways.

First of all, Hillary didn't "win the popular vote", unless you're talking about a specific state. Hillary's overall lead in votes is a fraction of a percent, hardly a total to brag about. And that vote count is meaningless because many states held caucuses instead of primaries, so they don't contribute to the vote count at all.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about fundraising. Here are statistics on fundraising for 2007.
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008
Hillary Clinton got 63% of her money from donors who donated the maximum legal value, compared to 43% for Obama. Obama got 26% of his money from donations under $200, compared to 12% for Hillary. So tell me again which candidate is supported by the rich, and which by small donations from the middle class.

And finally, there's your insistence that Obama supporters are a cult. It seems you've forgotten there's a general election in November. If Hillary wins the nomination, she'll need the support of that Kool-Aid-drinking cult you hate so much. Maybe you should be a little nicer to the people who might help elect your candidate.

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I think Obama, by reason of refusing to debate, is afraid of something being exposed/let out that would be detrimental to his "Squeaky Clean" image The Media has portrayed. I have not yet got my "Feeling" thing about the Rezko [spelling] association, but I am pretty sure there is more to it that has been made available. The loan was considered necessary to offset The Media coverage that has been so supportive of Obama since the start. odonnell619 says it fairly well in h/s Post.

Posted by: lylepink | February 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

interesting tidbit...

'The NYT notes that, based on 2007 fund-raising figures, no one got a bigger bang for his bucks than Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor won 156 delegates at a cost of approximately $45,000 each. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, spent $654,000 per delegate. But that's chump change compared to Rep. Ron Paul, who has lined up five delegates at a cost of about $4 million each.'

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade, the Supreme Court restricts Hillary Clinton from spending her own money on someone else's campaign. How is restricting her from spending her own money on her own campaign any different? If McCain/Feingold is Constitutional in general, then it would still be Constitutional if it banned self-financing.

If Hillary and Bill have a joint bank account, or other jointly-owned assets, then the money belongs to both of them. How does the law distinguish between the unlimited money that Hillary can spend on herself and the limited money that Bill can spend on her?

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

(Just) Another Hillary Attack?

But No Mention of McCain's Military-Industrial Financed Campaign..... Bombing IRAN means lots of Sales? Nothing about McCain Infidelities & Philandering? Nothing about McCain's Millionaire Wife arrangement?

Open Your Eyes! Why are the Pro-Republican Media & Pundits ONLY ATTACKING Mrs CLINTON, and Silent on Obama? They Know they Can Beat Barak Hussain, but not Hillary Rodman- She "Is Vetted" by 5 Year Investigations by Ken Starr & Republican Power Base - With NO RESULTS!

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Hey Kool-Aid Cult,

While you slobber all over the fact that Obama raised 32 Million in January, did you notice that this was announced just days after Kerry and Kennedy endorsed him? Along with those endorsements, he got their campaign donor lists.

I'm not impressed that a bunch of rich elitists that support the "status quo" opened their pockets for Obama. I'm also not impressed by his fund-raising at all when it's clear from media reports that affluent white Dems overwhelmingly support him. I was on Dkos last night, and some guy was bragging that he'd just donated $500 to Obama. Well, good for him, but I spent my whole adult life in the Army, and I don't have that kind of money to donate. I gave Hillary $50 which I had to put on a credit card.

I am impressed that Sen Clinton was able to raise 13.5 million from average working people who support her overwhelmingly. You cultists can deride her, but she represents the poor and middle class people, that's why she won the popular vote.

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

Ron Burkle's $20 million "payment" to Bubba for being wonderful: is that Bubba's alone or can the Clinton marriage sorta "lend" one partner to the other and when she gets her high and mighty billionaire friends of her own, pay the Bubba back, or something.

I'm no money technician but I work at a fish market and this Burkle-Bubba transaction does not pass the smell test.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"in the name of 'fairness' (nice liberal word, there)."

Yes, it is a 'liberal' word, JD--we actually beleive in it. I'm you find the whole concept 'quaint' -- just like the Geneva Convention, no doubt.

'If you want to talk about naivete, perhaps it is best used to describe those that think unregulated campaign contributions will result in clean, uncorrupt government.'

I don't think it's naivete at all, I think there are many out there who do not want clean, uncorrupt government--they want it to be able to be bought, because it is they and their compadres who can afford to do the buying.

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

bsimon | February 7, 2008 09:43 AM

Great rant!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Candidates shouldn't be allowed to use more than $2300 of their own money, whether as a loan or an outright donation."

Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 04:32 PM

Blarg - the Supreme Court has ruled on this. Money is speech. Thus, restrictions on the amount of one's own money one can spend are unconstitutional. Good luck getting the 2/3 majority through the Congress and 3/4 of all states required for a constitutional amendment.

One point to note folks. This had to be Hillary's money. Bill isn't allowed to donate more than $2300.

This issue came up in Utah a number of years ago. Enid Green wound up using a big chunk of back-door change from her father. The scandall cost her marriage and House seat. Same thing with John Kerry. He had to take a mortgage out on his house, even though his wife is filthy rich.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

Hillary could do a McCain and just show up at the primaries with a big smile on her face, pretending to enjoy herself immensely. Might work.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"bsimon, don't be naive. If you believe the first amendment allows for freedom of political speech, then surely you can't be against *the means* to carry that speech."

JD, are you capable of having a rational discussion without casting aspersion? Can you debate a principle without presuming a person's motivations and/or intellect for making the argument? Your response implies that you're unable to actually refute the argument and instead have to respond with an insult.

"McCain Feingold was passed because of the possibility of corruption or conflict of interest of monied donors providing that means. Blarg has suggested that even the candidates themselves should be effectively muzzled, in the name of 'fairness' (nice liberal word, there)."

'Fairness' is also a principle of law; the rules of our courts are designed to create a fair playing field where neither party has an unfair advantage. Arguing against fairness, is to argue that might makes right. Should the richest candidate win elections? How about the candidate who has the richest friends? You seem to concede the point that McCain-Feingold addresses very real problems in our political system. Yet your proposed alternative is to eliminate restrictions on any contributions at all. The problem with unfettered free markets is that humans inevitably throw morals and ethics aside in pursuit of a goal. They stop asking what the right thing is and start asking what's legal. Some don't ask so much about what's legal, as what the likelihood of getting caught for illegal behavior is.

If you want to talk about naivete, perhaps it is best used to describe those that think unregulated campaign contributions will result in clean, uncorrupt government. Get a clue.

Posted by: bsimon | February 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

JD, Dave, and bsimon -

TX has not published its "Financing Public Education" handbook since 2001.

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Education/Public/Finance_PublicEd_3dEd_1001.pdf

I was looking for a later one to make my point. As things stood in 2001, Feds accounted for 10% of PS funding in TX. The main components were the federally mandated handicapped help and the school meal program. You can glance through the TOC yourselves.

There was a component of Fed money for the disadvantaged, but I do not know if that meant anything different than the handicapped.

"Charter schools" is the program that supports "choice". The charter budget is
mentioned in the handbook but not explained. I am going to try to get you more info to bolster my contention that
"choice" should not be a feeralized issue and that the barn door has not closed.

I represent the Head Start Program in Travis County and work with both the School District's Attorney and the charter schools folks - so I am going to track down more of this info over the next couple of weeks for y'all.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Why does she call it a "loan"? Why not just give it to the campaign? Does she expect to be paid back with interest? What rate? Are all new donations now going to her bank account to pay her back? Many questions yet to be answered.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 07:48 AM


Because if it was called a gift, she would not be able to 'pay herself back' through additional fundraising once the campaign is over.

This is incredibly common, that campaign debt is retired after the election through additional donations. (you know, like from the NEA...)

Posted by: JD | February 7, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama Raises $5.8 Million On Line After Super Tuesday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080207/pl_bloomberg/acamub0ejcws

Posted by: Cameron_Carter | February 7, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

HRC's 2006 Financial Disclosure Statement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf

She could afford to lend her campaign the funds.

To win, she acts as if she believes that she must offset BHO's fund raising ability.

What else is newsworthy here? These two inferences seem obvious to me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

odonnell619 | February 7, 2008 08:28 AM

So you would vote for the candidate that has the support of the entrenched Establishment and big early donors, not the whip-smart youngster that is re-writing contemporary campaign strategy and tactics.

You would vote for the Machine and not the people's choice.

Sen. Obama is ready to fight without self-loans, without billionaries propping up Hillary's Bubba to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Obama is ready to keep on fighting on "Day One" after Feb5.

He is not ready, by the way to four more debates. No free air time for the Clinton Machine, thank you...very much.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama is nothing but a media creation. I am so tired of Obama's message of change and bipartisanship. Look back at news articles from the 2000 election. Bush claimed over and over again that could bridge the gap between the two political parties, and we all know how that worked out. I have heard absolutely no substance behind Obama's message. It is the naïve first-time voters that are being sucked into the "hopes and dreams" theme. Obama simply fills his speeches with clever sound bites that he knows the media will eat up and ignorant voters will buy into. People...please do your research and think for yourselves. Hilary is the best choice for Democrats. She is providing concrete solutions and proven experience. She is speaking in specific details, not buzzwords. Who cares how she voted about the Iraq war. Don't forget, she was voting the conscience of her constituency, the citizens of New York. Remember, the ones who were personally devastated by 9/11. That's in the past. Let's move forward.

I am a white 30 something male. I would love to see either a women president or a African American president. But I would never vote for someone simply because of the race or gender. Unfortunately, there are people who are voting for Obama simply because he is black, as evidenced by his 80% take of the black vote yesterday. Vote for the person who you think can do the most good for our country over the next 4 or 8 years. That has to be Clinton. Then hopefully the next President will be Obama, but he is simply not ready in 2008.

Posted by: odonnell619 | February 7, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is bankrupt of dollars, bankrupt of integrity, bankrupt of ideas. She should drop out and allow the party to reunite.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary runs out of money and her staff is eschewing salary.

Clearly, she and her team thought it would be over by Super Tuesday.

Sound familiar? Sound like Bush and company's handling of the invasion of Iraq? Not doing the homework; misjudging the lay of the land?

is this the kind of judgment we want?? Is this the kind of short-sighted vision we need?? Poor budget handling. Poor planning. Looking for bailout.

Obama has a better strategy. Better budget. Better fund-raising. Better judgmenmt. Better vision. Better ethics.

Obama '8!


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 7, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me if she can't run her 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 7:51 AM | Report abuse

It is also troubling that she delayed discloser of this until after the Super Tuesday primaries. I assume because she was concerned that her donors might stop donating.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Why does she call it a "loan"? Why not just give it to the campaign? Does she expect to be paid back with interest? What rate? Are all new donations now going to her bank account to pay her back? Many questions yet to be answered.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 7, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

According to TopNews (http://www.topnews.in/usa):
"In January, Clinton raised around $13 million, excluding the $5 million loan . . ."

According to the AP:
"Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said last week the Clinton campaign raised only $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million loan was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said."

The information is out there if you search for it.

Posted by: critter69 | February 7, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, you forecast a demolition derby with Hill left standing after Feb5.

The stunned trepidation that was evident in James Carville on Sunday with Russert should tell you something about body language.

Hill's news conference yesterday was of a person unprepared for the shocking reality "on day one" after super duper...aw, fuggedit.

The woman is toast, have a drink on that.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 5:01 AM | Report abuse

The Billary Dynamic Duo have "invested" $5 million of their own wealth. In response the "Inexperienced" young opponent made this announcement from the Little People's Obama Ready On Day One war room:

Since the polls closed Feb5 Obama supporters have given $6, 591, 960.

The little people are not Media-propelled entrenched inside players. Just the opposite. Obama is the people's choice and people are voting with their wallets.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 7, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

I am fascinated with the Obamites' spin on this.

McCain was all but out, yet his campaign kept going and he is now the GOP frontrunner. So to say that her decision to loan $5 mill is a sign of the end ignores events even in this race.

But perhaps an even greater concern is that is is taking a quarter of a BILLION US dollars to fight the campaign to even be nominated to run for President. I am glad that small donations make up so much of both campaigns and yes it is both, though I happily concede Obama has raised more this way), but aren't we all at least a bit concerned that this is the price for democracy??? Seems to me that all this process does is fill the coffers of the media moguls: no wonder they love to keep it going so long.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 7, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has now topped $7 million in the last 24 hours!

Posted by: chasmack99 | February 7, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Boutan: Say what you will about me being "cuckoo", Hillary will be the next POTUS, so put that with whatever you are smoking.

Posted by: lylepink | February 7, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

"I still maintain Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 2008."

You are coockoo LylePink...

I know so many conservative republicans (who I respectfully disagree with) and they all say the same thing: McCain does not excite them to go vote... but Hillary sure does... and they cannot wait to vote AGAINST her.

Obama will dominate the general election in a way not seen since Reagan. Hillary will try, and fail, to grind out a 1% win.

I am amazed candidates can earn money however they want, and inject it all into the campaign... her campaign is now 5% funded by Saudis and Chinese... yowsa.

Obama will build momentum over the next week as he wins the upcoming battles, most of which are CAUCUSES... important to note, as he dominates this style of vote.

Oh, I love politics. Bring on the next month.

P.S... watch how nasty Billary are about to get. No money, so they need headlines. They will attempt to paint Obama as nothing more than a "black" candidate. They can afford to piss off the blacks now, because they know it will build on the Latino/Asian racism that still exists. Things are about to get oh so dirty.

Posted by: Boutan | February 7, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I was slightly off on Super Dooper Tuesday and maybe The Media will continue the "Love Affair" with Obama a tad longer. Pa. is looking more critical every day and Hillary is a pretty sure winner there. The intriguing thing to me now is how my state, WV, could very possibly play the same role as in 1960 when most Historians credit us as the Major state in the election of JFK. I still maintain Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 2008.

Posted by: lylepink | February 6, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - "Self-financing is unfair. The whole point of campaign finance law is to prevent rich individuals from hijacking the process. Candidates shouldn't be allowed to use more than $2300 of their own money, whether as a loan or an outright donation."

Despite the fact that time and time again self-financing has proved unsuccessful (Romney, Perot, Kerry-Heinz, Forbes, John Connally, and the list goes on), people insist that it is not fair. In fact, according to opensecrets.org, only one of thirty serious self-financers won an election in 2004.

A billion dollars will not change the fact that Kucinich's message is outside the mainstream or that Gravel seems a penny short of a nickle. No amount of advertising will convince people otherwise. All that is required is a likable and believeable messenger with a message that people will buy into. All you need to do is look at Huck and McCain to see that to a large extent, money does not matter as much as many people think it does. Candidates do need a certain amount to get out their message and run their campaign but at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

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

Obama has raised over $5 million today online. Who'd have thought that Hillary and Terry McAuliffe, who might be the most prodigious fundraisers in Democratic Party history, would be so overwhelmingly outgunned?

It's obvious now that Team Hillary was banking on wrapping up the nomination yesterday and coasting to the convention. They went for broke, literally, and instead find themselves even for the moment and almost certainly falling further and further behind the rest of this month as this plays out.

Who are they going to turn to now for money? The people voting for her -- God love and protect 'em all -- don't exactly fit the profile of political donors. And the K Street and Wall Street sharpies who did fund her have maxed out already.

What this shows -- and this surprises me more than anything that has happened this political season -- is that Team Hillary, the most experienced bunch of campaign pros in politics today, has been out-strategized, out-maneuvered, out-organized, out-hustled, out-raised, and out-spent by people like Plouffe and Axelrod who are relatively new to the national scene.

This is a changing of the guard in more ways than one. Hard to believe it's actually finally happening. Between this and the Caps moving into 1st in their division tonight, I think it's time for the novamatt happy dance.

Posted by: novamatt | February 6, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

The In-trade prediction market now has Obama over Clinton at 60% for the democratic nomination. That's a move of 3% in 2 hours and 7% in the last 4 hours.

Obama campaign reports $5.4 million raised since polls closed last night. That's $1.2 million in the last two hours.

Posted by: optimyst | February 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The difference between Hillary lending her campaign money and Mitt lending his campaign money is that everybody knows of Mitt's business career. But how the hell does Hillary, she of the supposed 35 years of public service who has been drawing a Senate salary since 2000, have $5 million to spare? Some woman of the people she is.

Posted by: kjones121 | February 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

This is huge. Money problems are the first signs of a campaign about to collapse.

Posted by: zb95 | February 6, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - Let's put your comments about corporations buying elections in perspective. Only 14% of Obama's campaign donations are at the maximum $2300 limit vs. 2/3 for Clinton. 35% of Obama's campaign donation are $200 or less! - less than 10% of Clinton's are $200 or less. Over half of Clinton's money comes from corporate managers and Wall Street investors. "Independent" organizations campaigning on her behalf are almost all sponsored by businesses. There are active investigations of money laundering by her campaign; millions of dollars in campaign donations have been traced to foreign born and non-citizen minimum wage earning dishwashers and store clerks in California and New York, people who simply don't have $2300 to donate to some silly political campaign. The reporters traced much of that money to Indian and Chinese companies, even those governments! I expect that, awful though corporate donations are, most people would be even more upset if they knew that foreign governments were meddling in our political processes. Go do some reading of investigations being run by the Los Angeles and New York newspapers! The Clinton's are CORRUPT. You cannot claim any sort of moral high ground and support Hillary.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 6, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Lyle has got consensus. Sen. Obama tells anyone that will listen that Hillary should be considered the frontrunner.

If Obama says so, I believe him. Just keep those millions paving the way to the nomination, Mr. Underdog.

On the $5 million self-loan by Hillary:

Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The In-trade prediction market now has Obama over Clinton at 57% for the democratic nomination. That's a move of 4% in 2 hours.

Obama campaign reports $4.2 million raised since polls closed last night.

Posted by: optimyst | February 6, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Maybe George Bush should endorse McCain explaining that John would continue to pursue his policies on immigration and Iraq. That might move a few people.

Posted by: klmcgin | February 6, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Just read on another site - Politico.com - that Obama is well on his way to raising another $30 million in February. Hillary running out of money is not a good sign. Momentum seems to be with Obama. The "Super Delegates" will not be very impressed by this '$5 million loan' revelation.Was this part of her TOTAL for January that they gave out as $13 million? (if so, she raised only $8 million?)

Posted by: uofmdgrad | February 6, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I am reminded that back in 2006 Clinton spent an obscene amount of money for a re-election campaign where she really had little opposition. She spent like she was fighting for her political life.
So, you have to wonder about her ability to manage a campaign and budget. Lavish spending may have caught up with her and it makes people wonder what happened to all that money she did raise.
Though Obama raised 32 million by small donors like myself, he had money well managed.
Chris, this may give a hint at the management ability of each candidate and how they would govern and run things.

Posted by: vwcat | February 6, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

A question for mormons out there. You must pay 15% to your cult leaders. Is that after the government takes taxes? Is that the problem with high taxes? After the government takes it's, you still must pay the cult? Is there where the problem comes in?

I would argue to stop sabotaging the country and get out of the cult that is robbing you of your money. then you'll be able to pay your duty as americans without sabotaging the coutnry so you can have low taxes.

Any other cult members who have to pay the cult, catholics. If you didn't pay yoru cult would you be able to pay taxes without complaining. And without sacrafices our brothers and sisters, and sabotaging your country, in the process.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

optimyst | February 6, 2008 06:23 PM

Lyle also said Clinton would win 7 points ahead of Obama in California. And that she would be considered the frontrunner.

He also said Feb.5 would be a definite date for clarity.

The fact is that what is hapenning should not be hapenning but it is hapenning. The vaunted Hillary Machine, the Democratic Nomenklatura, the Bubba Aura, the Inevitability of the Coronation, they simply are not hapenning.

Now the cash is not there to fuel the hungry Mission:The White House charge of the Billary brigade.

Obama on the other hand is frolicking in an embarassment of riches. The Dreamer Poet seems to be a bare knuckles master poker player.

And there is nothing Hillary can do about it.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 6, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The In-trade prediction market now has Obama over Clinton at 53% for the democratic nomination.

This just in from LylePink -- Clinton still 100% certainty to receive nomination. Lyle says, "Bet the farm on it."

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

I wouldn't be so cocky zouk. The gop has none for the price of none. You are mighty bold for a man you has zero representation in american politics. Unless you are really a clinton supporter. I'm going with that.

Any rational person would have left this site months ago, if posting like you. Why do you come here? Your party had full power and yet you still came. Your party (the ultra fascist right) now is not represented and you still come. Don't get it.

I guess you are a crazy person.

Let me ask you this. If everything in the world went exactly how you wanted it, would you still hate liberals and democrats? If so you are to far gone.

You people had everything exactly your way for decades, yet you still complained. i can't wait to see you with an african-american as president. That should draw you red coat party loyalists out in the real world to show yoru faces. The future is today. I can't wait until you pigs are irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I'm making it happen. :)

Majority rule, gop. Don't sabotage your country if you don't get everything exactly how you want it. Democracy is about compromise. If you cannot compromise you are not americans. You are nazis.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

and that folks is now the most expensive dry-cleaning bill in history:

5 million bucks to try to retroactively remove a stain from a blue dress from the gap.

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

I wonder how the donations to the legal defense fund are going right about now?

I think the press just wants the clintons back so they will have all these scandels to write about. they won't even have to leave their office.

I guess bill has authorized "whatever it takes" - same thing he said to Dole after lying about him.

his reputation was never worth anything but it seems his sagging legacy is now worth at least $5M.

so he is now co-candidate and co-spender and co-history rewriter

Or in more familiar terms:

two for the price of three

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

Blarg, if I misinterpreted your post, sorry about that. I had thought you were against candidates using their own money to fund their message distribution. If all you were saying was, that the rules need to be universal, then of course I agree.

Those of you against candidates using their personal fortunes to put out their own message - are you the same ones who decry the fact that 'the media' never gave Ron Paul a chance? That they 'decided' that Edwards (or Gravel... or Kucinich... or insert whackjob here...) never got a fair shake?

Because that's the result of what you propose. Once we decide that only newspapers, talk show hosts, and other owners of the message channels get to decide what message Americans are to receive, then you have, in effect, given up on the 1st amendment.

Again I say, let people make their own decision! Trust Americans to make the right choice (with their votes). If Ron Paul were Ross Perot and wanted to self-fund his admittedly non-traditional message, would you be so against that self-funding of getting the message to you (let's hear from you Paulites out there?)

JD

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

gREAT POST boswell.

YEs we can.

"As not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

JFK

What does the gop do to help this great nation? Other than sabotage? Other than being invested in the deafeat of america at home.

For all their "rewards", what do they ever have to sacrafice.

Great post boswell. Keep up the journey. Remember change cannot come through conflict. Mental change cannot come without mental conflict. Altough conflict for nothing but moeny help no one.

Keep it up. Grow. To not grow is to be dead already. Do you rthing boy. The future is now.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

ps Jesus was a buddists and buddists are true chritsians. We are by our actions not words. :) Buddists are christians. Real christians, not like the "religous" right whose words do not add up to their practices.

Good luck with your journey. If JEsus was alive today what would he do? Would he be with bush? Would he go to dental school? Or would he be a bum helping everyone he meets?

do not fear or give power to the fascists. The only power they have is the power we give them:)

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

anyway, 'clintons' don't want pesky citizens getting in the way of foreign governments buying our elections and writing our laws, so don't pick on them.

Posted by: claudialong | February 6, 2008 05:42 PM

how very astute for a moonbat jackel.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

If this $5M was included in her January total of $13.5M then Obama raised nearly 4 times her total at $32M!

Posted by: chasmack99 | February 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I am 31 years old. I had all but changed my worldview to a truly Buddhist, non-dualist perspective in which everything is a creation of my own energy force and intention, and in which I wouldn't dream of wearing or sending political messages because all the change I was looking for could be accomplished in meditation. I thought all I had to do was change my mind.

Well, I changed my mind. And I've been e-blasting and spamming people like crazy to let people know. I cannot do it alone, and neither can you. But if we step out of our crippled worldviews and ask each other for help and hope, we can have the world we want. Yes, we can. If we are willing to shed the tears that are aching to fall, and we are willing to believe in something else, we can have something new. Yes, we can. If we can reacquaint politics with civics we can see politicians as people again, deserving not only of our respect, but of our active accountability. We can hold them responsible again and reclaim our participation. Yes, we can. Voting is not enough.
Believe, get mad if you have to, get sappy like me and send this to everyone you know, and don't be afraid to be laughed at.

This only works if those of us who believe actually cradle others who are jaded and let them know that it is safe to believe again. If you want America, here it is. But voting is not enough. Stir people up, start with yourself and then speak up.

Yes, we can.


If my words have given you even a moment's pause, please share this with everyone you know.
kecb


........Do not ask yourself what the world needs. Find what makes you come alive and go do it because what the world needs is people who have come alive.
~ Harold Thurman Whitman

Posted by: boswell | February 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

the sun has gone down here in the east and the moonbats have emerged.

"if it's oral, then i guess it's speech, right?"

I suppose you should ask an expert on this topic - bill clinton, although his definitions can be evasive at times. by 'it's' do you mean 'it is' and by 'is' do you mean is or was or will be? by 'it' do you mean he or she or a non-gender specific item?

By "no foreign dnoations" - do you mean unlaundered or in the currency of the home country?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

whatever harlemboy. You show yoru face with that post. you are a clinton supporter. You have shown this previous.

Propoganda. Keep it up. Maybe a dittohead or clinton supporter will buy it. That gives you 30% to play with. What will you do about the other 70% of us who are not buying clinton/gop propoganda?

you show yoru face in thye posts. Clinton can't win. Screw teh gop propoganda machine. Are they still to be feared? They look to me, as a progressive, to be limp, powerless. Why would you still fear them? Rush is done, for all purposes (no crediblity or power) fox will be right behind. The fact that you still fear of give any power to the pig fascists propogandists shows you are one of them (as is your girl clinton) The american peopel see you now. the gop and their meat puppets are done. They made their bed. Let them sleep in it. To fear them is to give them power. The only power they have is the power WE give them. Don't give it up harlemboy, like you did in that last post.

Unless of course you are a right-wing/clinton supporter wasting you time. If that's the case, continue. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

the idea was not to eliminate money in politics, it was to eliminate the appearance of corruption or buying influence.

how can you buy your own influence?

you Libs know so much - all wrong.

but notice if you give speeches in china and then deposit the money and then loan it to yourself, you have allowed foreign influence despite the loophole.

I expect to hear the old chanting again:

"no controlling legal authority".

Leave it to the clintons to find a way around any regulations involving money. they are grifters through and through.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse


'Since when does money = speech?

What next, the john arrested on a streetcorner defends his spending as a protected form of speech?'

if it's oral, then i guess it's speech, right?

anyway, 'conservatives' don't want pesky citizens getting in the way of multinatioanal corporations buying our elections and writing our laws, so don't pick on them.

Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

zouk is still running his mouth. wow.

And he didn't even change his post name. How very brave and tough of him.

hahahahaha

I guess credibility and accountability is a thing of the past with the gop. An fyi, from an independant thinker. You look ridiculous zouk. A blogger or newsman with zero credibility is nothing but a propogandists.

you have to be right once of twice zouk, to attain credibility. I'm still waiting. I know I know, rudy is going to make a comeback.

I can't believe you gop'ers. you got balls. I give you that. Brains? Not so much.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

JD, I never said that the government should stifle the candidates' messages, or modify it in any way. I said that the same rules should apply to self-financing as apply to any other type of financing. That does nothing to a candidate's message; it just prevents people from buying their way into office. A candidate's personal wealth should not be a qualification for office. Sorry if I'm relying too much on liberal concepts like "fairness" that don't make sense to you.

Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we've always known it. We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with. Working with them, history has shown, ends up being a one-way street. They get what they want, the neutering of conservatism, the neutering of the Republican Party. "

rush

so the right made it's choice. Should the left recipracate? Will they? No we will not. WE are americans. Unlike the right who are party loyalist dittoheads who do what they're told to do by propogating fascists. Wake-up gop. You are being played. Fighting against your slave masters. GEt rush and fox and hannity off the air, savage. Only then can we re-unite this country. If you will not or cannot do that, you make your choice.

But don't ask for pity when nobody cares about your or you ropinion. Compromise. You got to give to get. What does the right ever sacrafice, other than credibility?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"Now, this is what nobody seems to get. When did the measure of conservatism, when did the measure of success, when did the measure of progress, when did it become reaching out to Democrats? Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats, to defeat them. Ronald Reagan created what's known as the Reagan Democrats, southern Democrats, who joined the Republican Party as conservative voters. They may have stayed Democrats, but they were voting for conservatism. We are reaching out and asking liberals to come join us as liberals. And somehow this is a great masterstroke? If this were a war, what we're saying is, "Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here." If the Republican Party and the Democrat Party were two nations, Senator McCain is saying, "I'm going to have no border on my nation, the Republican Party. And if those people in that enemy party want to come in, infiltrate our party, that's great. I'm going to show that I'm the guy that can get it done. I'm going to be the guy to not protect the borders." Why is it so hard? I'm serious. This one escapes me. Why is it so hard to understand that what we want is to defeat those people?
"

rush limbaugh

So we are at war already? a new civil war? Who started this war against america? If the gop and their fascist cult started this war against americans, only they can stop it. If they refuse to stand down they must be shown the door. They must be removed for the table or politics. Do not pity the fascists. They made their choice to wage war against both liberals and america. For what? Low taxes and slave labor (illegal immagration).

the gop is done. they made their bed. Let them sleep in it. do not pity them for the choices they make. If they want to wage war on american and americans. ALL americans should stand agaisnt the right. Either you are enabling teh fascists or fighting them

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary-ous!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 6, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

This development is SO ironic!

Lyle, how will you defend Hillary from the "HATE"ers now?

If it's wrong for Mitt to donate,

If it's wrong for John to donate,

Isn't it wrong for Hillary to donate?

Mike Huckabee flies coach and stays in cheap motels. I guess that's how a "conservative" manages his campaign money - by effectively competing in a national election with minimal resources. I'm fairly certain he's not coming up with more than $2,300 to self-fund. Yet he'll last longer than Mitt.

Interesting.

I agree with Zouk -- how do the liberals manage their campaign money? Spend and borrow, of course (McCain, Romney, Clinton).

Hillarious.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

hillary finally tells the truth, for the first time - imagine:

"like my husband did with foreign terrorists, I have done with budgets. I tried and I failed. I thought the DC bar would be the last time but it has been steady ever since. you should all vote for Obamabi, he can lose as easily as I would. We need our money And everytime Bill goes off to give a speech in china he comes home with a strange rash. He says it's the food. I believe him. He never lies".

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

'But because his wife is running, he's allowed to donate $5 million to her campaign"

It was a loan, not a donation. the feminists amd Latinos of America will have to pay them back with other donations. Perhaps in Pesos or yen.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I read your second post after I replied to bsimon.

My thoughts: I'd rather trust the American people to receive and consume the candidate's raw message, rather than have government stifle that message through some misguided notion of 'fairness'. I don't want government deciding what's fair, I'd rather make that decision myself.

I know who is funding whom. Let me decide.

And as for McCain-Feingold, as I mentioned earlier, this is a different (but slightly related) issue.

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, recent history has shown that the mainstream media allow themselves to be bullied and intimidated by the Republicans. Thus, if Obama is the nominee, I would expect the media (as usual) to be so sensitive to Republican accusations of "liberal media bias" that they finally will go after Obama at least partially to compensate for the "kid gloves" treatment he's receiving from them now. And I'm sure the Republicans cannot wait for the fall campaign against Obama, but they're holding back until it's too late for Democrats to change their minds.

By the way, I heard Karl Rove has been saying some nice things about Obama lately (at least for now). That tells me all I need to know about the Republican strategy of lulling Democrats into a false sense of security.

Moderates get elected in this country, not extremists. If an extremist manages to slip through the process (like George W.), it is invariably because he has convinced everyone that he is a moderate. Maybe this can happen this year with Barack. (He is, after all, about as extreme on the left as a mainstream politician is likely to get, while somehow convincing the electorate so far that he is a moderate.) God knows, as progressive as I am, I would love that to happen. But I would feel better if I could look to even one example in the last forty years of this actually occurring on the side of the Democrats. The Republicans have so far been suspiciously quiet about this survey that found Obama to be the most liberal member of the Senate, but excuse me for believing that they are biding their time, waiting to pounce on this info with everything they've got.

Posted by: harlemboy | February 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill, dear, call up Kazakstan, tell them we will do them a BIG favor next year if they pay you now to give a $5m speech. Put the money in our joint account and then we can loan it to my campaign.

Yep, typical clinton chicanery.

Despite what he said last month:

In December, according to the Politico, Bill Clinton strongly implied that the couple had no plans to part with its money.

"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," the former president said.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_weighs_a_selfloan_to_f.php

I wonder if he will get all red-faced and start wagging his finger again?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, don't be naive. If you believe the first amendment allows for freedom of political speech, then surely you can't be against *the means* to carry that speech.

In today's reality, you need money to fund TV, radio, internet, and other media channels to bring your message to the masses.

McCain Feingold was passed because of the possibility of corruption or conflict of interest of monied donors providing that means. Blarg has suggested that even the candidates themselves should be effectively muzzled, in the name of 'fairness' (nice liberal word, there).

I for one would rather people have the ability to spend their own money to get their message out - not have that message warped and edited by newspapers, talk radio, etc.

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for people spending gazillions on their pet projects. Some will come out looking the genius (Bloomberg, Obama), most will out-Romney themselves into universal derision.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for people spending gazillions on their pet projects. Some will come out looking the genius (Bloomber, Obama), most will out-Romney themselves into universal derision.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 6, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

JD, the issue is that the law isn't consistent. I know that you don't like campaign finance reform laws at all. You repeat your dislike of McCain/Feingold even more than you repeat the fact that you live near DC. But even so, you have to see that the law is not applied equally.

If Bill Clinton decided he wanted to support Obama, he could donate $2300 to Obama's campaign. That's the maximum amount allowed by law. But because his wife is running, he's allowed to donate $5 million to her campaign. That's a huge loophole. It allows wealthy individuals (or their spouses) to have far more of an impact as candidates than they could as donors.

Whether or not McCain/Feingold is generally a good law, the fact that it allows self-financing is inconsistent with its stated goals. It still allows a few rich people to hijack politics, but it requires them to be candidates instead of donors.

Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, we sure wouldn't want people to actually be able to get their message out. You know, first amendment and all.

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 04:41 PM

In this case the message is, I will run the economy of the country into the ground in much the same I have done with my campaign money - spend, spend, spend. If you run out, look for a rich white guy to fix it , taxpayer, donor, whatever, as long as I win.

maybe she can sell conditional pardons, to be redeemed if she wins.

she spent millions on her Senate campaign too against a non-existent challenger. Libs can't help themselves.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims that Sen. Clintons supporters will vote for him but that his supporters are so closed-minded that they would vote for a Republican instead of Sen. Clinton.

What does that tell you about his campaign?

Posted by: Democrat08 | February 6, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, we sure wouldn't want people to actually be able to get their message out. You know, first amendment and all."


Since when does money = speech?

What next, the john arrested on a streetcorner defends his spending as a protected form of speech?

Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

so hillary clinton - the "frontrunner" is broke and all her doners are maxed out already, only halfway through the contest.

this is the person who is going to balance our budget and run the economy?

this is pretty fitting for a Lib candidate. time to hit the chinese bank account and get those dishwashers, monks and all the other "no controlling legal authority" donors in line.

Unfortunatly, in this case the donors gave willingly, not like the taxpayers will have to when she needs to be bailed out.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Since leaving the White House, Clinton has earned more than $20 million in speaking fees from foreign sources in places like the People's Republic of China and Dubai, according to her Senate financial disclosure forms. They also share a joint checking account according to those same forms.

If Hillary uses that foreign money to finance her campaign she will have successfully exploited a loophole in campaign finance rules that forbids the use of foreign money in U.S. elections.

I dunno about you, but it sounds like the beginning of another classic Clinton financial scandal. And this comes on top of recent news that Bill's been courting uranium deals for the benefit of her foundation in Kazakhstan and looming questions about whether Bill would be more of a renegade global ambassador than First Gentleman in the White House

http://townhall.com/blog/g/5a356515-3b48-4a9b-8b1c-a9d1ec038b60

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Candidates shouldn't be allowed to use more than $2300 of their own money, whether as a loan or an outright donation.

Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 04:32 PM


Yeah, we sure wouldn't want people to actually be able to get their message out. You know, first amendment and all.

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

This is very big news on two levels:

1. It will really put the spotlight on the Clinton's financial dealings since they left the white house and for that matter while they were in their final year in the White House. Not going to be pretty and will really diminish her argument that she has been vetted. Lots of baggage here waiting for the Republicans.

2. I think that Super Delegates will look at financial strength as a criteria in deciding who to back for the nomination. We have a long time until the convention. Obama has basically unlimited ability to fund his campaign and drive a finacial advantage with McCain. When he knocks out Hillary a huge number of her backers are likely to write checks on top of the 700,000 small donors he currently can turn to over and over again. I doubt that many Obama donors will be that excited to donate to her. She has likely tapped out the political donor base she and bill cultivated over the years creating a weakness not only against Obama but against the Repulicans in the spring and summer of 08. Very troubling.

Posted by: matt | February 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Was this loan included in her $13.5 million last month? That would put her fundraising in an completely different light.

Posted by: dcespy | February 6, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I was about to say the same things. Romney has mostly been mocked for self-financing, and McCain's lack of money was seen as his death knell.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Self-financing is unfair. The whole point of campaign finance law is to prevent rich individuals from hijacking the process. Candidates shouldn't be allowed to use more than $2300 of their own money, whether as a loan or an outright donation.

Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

boldbooks writes
"Odd that all the pundits were lauding McCain and Romney for loaning themselves money, but if Hillary does it then it is a sign that she is a loser."

1) I don't think Romney has been 'lauded' for spending millions of his own money on his campaign. 2) When McCain's money woes first surfaced, he was considered finished as a candidate. 3) Sen Clinton raised & spent over $100,000,000 on this campaign, and had to loan her campaign money to keep going; that is a sign of something being wrong.

Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Boldbooks: Nobody was lauding Romney for loaning himself money. It was played more as a weakness and a general lack of interest in his campaign. Obama will raise another $30m this month from people who worked hard for it. (I donated again today, and will donate again this weekend, and again next week)

bsimon: Well said.

Posted by: schencks84 | February 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton finds herself, somewhat amazingly, the underdog to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.)."

Underdog is overplayed.

I would reword the sentence as follows:

"Clinton finds herself, somewhat amazingly, outperformed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.)."

Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Odd that all the pundits were lauding McCain and Romney for loaning themselves money, but if Hillary does it then it is a sign that she is a loser. The media's hatred of Hillary is just despicable.

Posted by: boldbooks | February 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Since she and Bill made that money by outsourcing our jobs, promoting cheap India guest workers, and trading our lives for her riches, I am delighted to see her part with some of her wealth. What is too bad, is that we cannot find a way to take every last dime of it and give it back to the workers she has harmed so much.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company