Hillary used up a year's worth of fundraising in January, under the theory that she would soundly beat Barack Obama and John Edwards on Super Tuesday, and seal up her "inevitability." Replacement money, she figured, would then flow like water.
Nice plan,except that it didn't happen that way.
Barack not only won more states than Hillary, but when the dust finally settles, he may have won more delegates too. One thing is for sure: In the week ahead, the Obama campaign is going to beat Hillary like a pair of bongos, winning (I expect) in WA, NE, LA, MD, VA, and ME.
Which is a problem for Hillary, because apparently she has has no money left.
The first indication of serious trouble came this morning when Hillary challenged Obama to weekly debates (normally the tactic of someone who is behind and running out of funds).
Now comes word she is borrowing $5 million from herself to self-finance her campaign (see article below). That money is reportedly already gone and nearly $2 million is owed to pollster Mark Penn.
Ouch.
Now the report is out that members of Senator Hillary Clinton's senior campaign staff have agreed to work without pay for the month of February. To show "solidarity."
Right.
Will the lying never cease? Barack treats us like we have a brain. Hillary treat us like we are all idiots.
I had expected Hillary to to hit the wall around the first week in March. Apparently I miscalculated the burn rate of having so many high-paid staffers on payroll.
A note to printers, travel agents and TV and radio stations: most political candidates stick their vendors with unpaid bills. Try not to be one of them!
In the interim, I am giving more money to Barack Obama to make sure he goes over the top.
Join me! You do not have to be a Democrat to donate; all you have to be is someone who is saying NO to Hillary. She's a fine Senator. Let's keep her there.
Clinton Loaned Campaign $5 Million
February 06, 2008 3:45 PM
ABC News' Kate Snow and Teddy Davis Report: Late last month Senator Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million dollars of her own personal money, ABC News has learned.
At a press conference at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, Clinton, D-N.Y., said, "I did I loaned the campaign $5 million dollars of my money. That's where I got the money. I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign. We had a great month fundraising in January, broke all records, but my opponent was able to raise more money, and we intended to be competitive and we were. And I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."
The loan came in the same month that Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised $32 million.
Clinton's campaign reportedly raised about $13 million dollars last month. The campaign says that amount does not include the $5 million loan.
"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. 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," said Communications Director Howard Wolfson.
.
8 comments:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Harpers November 2006
Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine
I read this tonight and it shows he is in the lobby money game as they all are. It will be interesting if he holds true to his claims of change.
WH
"In 2001, reacting to a surge in home foreclosures in Chicago, [Obama] helped push for a measure that cracked down on predatory lenders that peddled high-interest, high-fee mortgages to lower-end homebuyers. Obama was also the driving force behind legislation, passed in 2003, that made Illinois the first state to require law-enforcement agencies to tape interrogations and confessions of murder suspects. Throughout his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama called for social justice, promised to 'stand up to the powerful drug and insurance lobbies' that block health-care reform, and denounced the war in Iraq and the Bush White House.
"Since coming to Washington, Obama has advocated for the poor, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and has emerged as a champion of clean government. He has fought for restrictions on lobbying, even as most of his fellow Democrats postured on the issue while quietly seeking to gut real reform initiatives. In mid-September, Congress approved a bill he co-authored with Oklahoma’s arch-conservative senator, Tom Coburn, requiring all federal contracts and earmarks to be published in an Internet database, a step that will better allow citizens to track the way the government spends their money."
Hmmmm. That doesn't sound like a corporate toady to me.
Reading the article I found little support for the notion that Obama is more of the same-old same-old. In fact, author Ken Silverstein offers so little evidence to support his article's thesis that I was left amused. Hard core leftied like Silverstein seem to get particular wrapped around the axle when it comes to energy policy. You see, from their perspective ALL energy is bad.
Sure we want the country to get off the oil tit (damn Arab extortionists heating up the polar ice caps), but for God's sake NO nuclear .... and NO coal ... and NO ethanol... and NO wind. Apparently we are supposed to be heating our homes with tantric group sex, while commuting to work on dog power, and pumping our water with the aid of our daughter's pet hamster harnessed to his running wheel.
The "smoking gun" in Silverstein's piece seems to me that Obama has gotten some money from DC lawyers (who max out at around $2,000 like everyone else). Since I know this community pretty well, let me suggest a few obvious common-sense things. The first is that a significant number of lawyers in Washington. D.C. are Democrats or independents -- about the same number of Democrats and independents as you might find anywhere doing any kind of job. So it's not too odd for liberal lawyers to be giving to liberal candidates, any more than it is to find conservative lawyers giving to conservative candidates. As to the notion that a $2,000 contribution gets you a seat at the policy table, it's a laughable assertion. Would that it were so!
Another point: It's not odd that lawyers would feel good about a lawyer who was not only head of the Harvard Law Review (often the alma matter of the very top lawyers), but who is also a constitutional scholar. Obama is a "lawyer's lawyer" in terms of being bug-light bright and level-headed.
Now here's a question: What kind of law did Obama acually do?
Answer: He was the kind of lawyer that worked on cases where large companies and institutions were sued on behalf of the poor and America's overburdened taxpayers. Obama wrote, for example, the winnning Supreme Court brief in the Chandler decision, which was an important False Claims Act case. The False Claims Act is the whistleblower law that has resulted in more than $20 billion of your stolen tax dollars being returned to the U.S. Treasury.
So yes, Obama is an admirable person who has done admirable things, and even liberal lawyers respect that. Surprise!
Now, let me tell you a personal story.
I was at an Obama fundraiser back in September (I gave $50), and recently tried to tap someone who was at that fundraiser to give to Obama again. I was tapping him because he's wealthier than me, and trying to get him to give is easier than explaining to the wife that I have given *another* $50 contribution to Obama. My friend said he could not give to Obama -- they had already returned his check for $2,000. What? Why? "He won't take my money." It seems my friend is still a registered lobbyist even though he is essentially retired (he is past 70). And, for the record, when he WAS a lobbyist it was as a founder of the Sierra Club Legal Defense and Education Fund where he worked to help protect America's public forests (i.e. YOUR forests). Still, Obama will not take his money. Obama has rules. And if you want to see those rules, try to donate money online at the link on this blog post. Before your contribution will go through you have to click on a statement saying that you are not a lobbyist, that the money is your own, name the place where you work (they want to avoid bundling), and give the title of your job too. Go ahead and try it -- give $3 so you can say you are a donor and know what it is that Obama requires of his donors. It's a cheap $3 experience. Historical too.
So, no, I don't think Obama is the same-old same-old. Which is why I am telling folks they need to suit up, show up, stand up, and sign up for this guy. It's time rank-and-file Americans supported a candidate. And the good news is apparently they are; Obama raised over $5 million online yesterday from people like you and me.
Go team!
Now let's do it again. $3 at a time if need be.
Patrick
Here's an interesing piece about why Hillary has hit the wall and why Obama has not:
"A report just completed by the Campaign Finance Institute showed Clinton raised more than half her money in 2007 from donors who gave the maximum allowed by law. Obama, in comparison, raised just one third of his money from $2,300 donors.
"It means, Sen. Obama has the ability to keep going back to his donors, while she has a more difficult burden of having to seek out new donors," said Weissman, who is the institute's associate director for policy.
"Clinton also had more trouble attracting support from small donors, many of whom gave over the Internet. While 47 percent of what Obama raised last year came from donors who gave less than $200, those small contributors made up just 15 percent of Clinton's donor base.
"In January, when Obama swamped Clinton by raising $32 million, compared to her $13 million, the vast majority of his total -- $28 million -- came over the Internet."
For the whole article, see >> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/07/obama_fundraising_strength_com.html
P.
From James Wolcott's Blog:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/02/so-spurn-me-i-v.html
"Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification."
Yeah, it might be that Jim Wolcott's aetheism is a small problem. A higher calling and purpose other than HIM right NOW?
Heaven forbid! There is no higher purpose than self, right? The Golden Rule? Service? That's crazy communist talk!
The funny thing is that while Wolcott tries to indict Obama for idealism, the opposite critique is also leveled against Obama; that he has worked too closely with the Republicans to find compromise solutions to complex problems, and that he is willing to work with market forces in the health care arena.
Hillary, for example, says Obama is not "pure enough" when it comes to health care. Only she can carry the Sacred Grail of Universal Health Care. She says Obama is too willing to settle for "much better" rather than hold out for what she sees as the theoretical "perfection" of Universal Single Payer (never mind that she did not get it in 8 years of trying). The good is the enemy of the perfect says the woman unburdened by success.
These criticisms, such as they are, get get pretty funny pretty fast.
For example, the previous link offered up in the comments section of this post, suggests Obama is "selling out" to corportations and lobbyists.
Now, however, Wolcott is suggesting the opposite, saying Obama is too utopian to actually do business and win victories in Congress.
Any brick in a fight, I suppose.
From what I can see, people are basically writing and talking without reading much, and they are researching even less.
I mean, it's not like Obama does not have a record, and it's not like his life story is not an open book (literally) or that his policy positions cannot be found between two covers. Go to Borders or B. Daulton and get both of his books. Read the life story first -- Dreams from My Fathers. This book was written 13 years ago before he ran for office of anything. It is an astounding, interesing, and very well-written book that will tell you a LOT and answer almost any doubts. And it was not designed to do that; it was simply his life story.
As for criticism, there is no fear of it from any side. Truth tends to float to the top in time. The more people see of Obama and learn about Obama, the more they seem to vote for him. Does he walk on water? Only in Minnesota in winter, same as everyone else. That said, he is a very good and very rare thing -- a true leader in a nation that has not had one in decades.
As for Barack's history, it is one of getting things done. His operating method seems to be based on pragmatic unity -- picking his fights carefully, and organizing peopel to achieve victory. His core idea is that power is derived from listening to folks and then framing their concerns in terms of core American principles -- princples than can be used to organize the people to achieve political success.
Organize? Listen?
What's that?
Exactly.
That's the problem. Consolidation of power in Washington is not based on organizing, but on an "us versus them" message; rich versus poor, young versus old, black versus white, rural versus urban, Republican versus Democrat, men versus women, etc. Organizing gives a nod to the idea that the American people are the true power, and not the politicians they appoint. In other words, it's not about "super delegates," and super donors, it's about voters and small-dollar donors. It's not about health care *theories*, it's about health care delivery. Barack gets it.
P.
My friend's 80-something-year-old mother, a Stanford grad with an accomplished life behind her, said after voting for Ombama on Super Tuesday that she hasn't felt so good about ANY vote she has cast since she voted for Adlai Stevenson.
Hillary's conduct during her self-inflicted health care debacle in 1993 set back the cause of health care reform in America by 15 years. It's not just that she lost, and lost spectacularly. She was the opposite of organizing and listening. She was close minded, reckless, and vindictive. She squandered the opportunity that was handed to her on a silver platter. Read this excellent Op-Ed by Brooks in NYT on the subject http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?em&ex=1202446800&en=71fcb9a2bceb4c8b&ei=5087
They say Hillary learned from the 1993 mess and has done a much better job working with colleagues in the Senate. I believe that. Of course, it's impossible to get anything done in the Senate unless one will work cooperatively with colleagues. My concern is that Hillary will revert to her authoritarian ways if she got back into the White House. Especially if she's in the driver's seat at the White House.
I don't believe that the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are all that great. I believe Obama's inclusive and respectful management style is much more likely to get things done.
I am sick of wedge politics, Rovian and Clintonian vilification of opponents, serial dishonesty by our "leaders", dishonor due to their actions, imperial presidencies, and governing with 51% mandates. It's time for a president who can unify and inspire this nation. Obama is the one who can do it.
For those who want to be amused (and who doesn't) here's how folks on the far right and far left are trying to pull down Obama without having done the slightest bit of reading or research on the man.
From the Far Left we have Marc Lamont Hill who writes at http://www.theroot.com/id/44630:
that Obama practices the "politics of cunning, compromise and concession."
Never mind that cunning does not work too well with compromise and concession unless you also want to toss in the other "c-words" -- Competent and Capable of getting it done.
No, the far left, unburdened by ever achieving anything, opens up their scatter gun and takes aim after firing (they are still a little unclear on how guns work) and goes at it:
"[T]he election of Obama would still be acceptable if his policies were properly aligned with a leftist agenda. unfortunately, Obama has clung to a rigid centrism that is incompatible with full-scale social change. Despite his claims of being a peace candidate, Obama has repeatedly expressed a commitment to ramping up military and continuing the presidential legacy of using war as an instrument of foreign policy. Although he opposes the war in Iraq, Obama refuses to vote against its funding.
"While Obama supports health care for all Americans, he does not embrace a universal single-payer system that would effectively undermine private corporate interests. At the same time that he bemoans the loss of jobs and expansion of global poverty, Obama fails to denounce free trade agreements and extols the virtues economic globalization. In addition, Obama has been conspicuously silent on topics such as the prison industrial complex, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the economic underdevelopment of Africa."
Ah, so Obama would "still be acceptable" ... if ... he did what he was told by someone who has never achieved anything? Obama would be "still be acceptable" if he thought a militarily weak country was a good idea? Obama would be "still be acceptable" if his campaign platform was to open up all the prisons while closing down all trade with the rest of the world?
Right. Thanks for sharing Marc Lamont Hill. Thanks for clarifying things for us.
Over at the well-named Vanity Fair, however, we have James Wolcott (who voted for Hillary) whose indictment of Obama is that he is not going to be capable of legislative horse-trading (please ignore Obama's legislative record, which is longer than Hillary's). and whose words are merely "ethereal" and ungrounded by solid policy proposals (ignore the books, the backgrounders on his web site, and the carefully framed talking points). Obama, you see, may be hopeful, but he is entirely unpractical. He is a dreamer. Obama, says Mr. Wolcott, is not cunning enough, he will not compromise enough, and he will concede enough to get things done.
Well gee, Jimmy, thanks for that deep insight. Any more monkeys coming out of your ass tonight?
Here's another possibility that might explain both Mr. Marc Lamont Hill and James Wolcott: Neither one of them knows his elbow from a teacup. Like so many scribblers, they think being good with words is a fine substitute for real public policy experience. They think writing a clever sentence is more important than actually researching what is said in that sentence.
No matter. There is no stopping such people. And they are certainly entertaining when put in juxtaposition.
Patrick
Post a Comment