TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Update on Whether Obama Will Offer to Help With Hillary's Campaign Debt | 210 comments (210 topical)

Did you not read the rest of the sentence... (3.00 / 1) (#14)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:34 AM EST

...the issue is mainly with her advisors, not her.

I don't particularly like the idea of helping Penn out, he led the charge of a lot of anti-Obama stuff -- and as an Obama supporter that matters -- and quite frankly he did Hillary no favors at all either. So the idea that he'd get paid by Obama's folks via the woman he served so poorly is troubling.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST

I hope she doesn't take the money. She doesn't need Obama's tainted cash. I'm sure she or Bill can make it back in a heartbeat.

[ Parent ]

I think it's up to Hillary... (none / 0) (#26)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:20 AM EST

...if she wants help I hope she gets it, and that the story is buried and no one talks about it.

[ Parent ]

She doesn't need help. (none / 0) (#34)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Campaign debts (none / 0) (#115)
by PattyinArizona on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:35 AM EST

www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/08/why-clinton-stands-to-lose-millions.html

[ Parent ]

Obama is handing out checks to a guy who (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:05 AM EST

put together an ad that morphed Dean into Bin Laden.

[ Parent ]

But Obama is the nominee... (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:39 AM EST

...Penn did a disservice to Clinton not because he was negative -- that's just the reason Obama supporters are loathe to pay him -- but because Clinton should've had this in the bag, but has almost certainly lost. Something went wrong on the strategic/message level. And that's his thing.

[ Parent ]

If Obama Were the Nominee (5.00 / 5) (#35)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST

he wouldn't be offering to pay Clinton to quit.

I honestly don't understand why his campaign seems absolutely desperate to get her to quit when supposedly they'll get that in three weeks.

[ Parent ]

WV and KY will look bad (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST

plus disenfranchising FL and MI is messy and unDemocratic.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.75 / 4) (#60)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:54 AM EST

If he really had this thing wrapped up, he wouldn't need to take all these steps that will hurt him in November.

I still expect him to be the nominee, but it's very weird.

[ Parent ]

: i guess they want all the hard working (none / 0) (#206)
by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:27:25 AM EST

democratic core to leave and take the clintons with us when we go. since we form the majority of the party, i'd say that should be quite interesting. the young and restless won't give them much. in fact they'll try and hit up on bitter boomer mom and dad for it. the aa community i am sure will want to but their resources are limited. so donna, dean, just where are you getting your moola for the new dem party? the latte drinkers? some but they'll get tired of hearing from you once obama has gone down in defeat and perish the thought that you might expect THEM to do hard work in a campaign. listen, good luck with that. when you get some humility, don't give us a call. we'll think about it depending on your attitude. (snark)

[ Parent ]

WV and KY (none / 0) (#221)
by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:30 AM EST

and MO and PR will look bad for Obama too. After all this talk about Obama breaking into Hilary's base, it seems to be the total opposite. Obama has been losing the working class/white voter in each election. Hillary has actually vitalized that base.

I doubt if Obama , with a couple of flowery speeches, can unite that Hillary core, which is the Core of the Democratic Party, to vote for him.

[ Parent ]

They do seem a little panic (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST

stricken. It's funny to watch.

This from the winner?

[ Parent ]

He isn't offering... (none / 0) (#42)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM EST

...these are just stories floating around the media because it's a good, easily BS'd upon, factless story that fits in their little preconceived narrative. And I'm assuming you don't trust the media on this issue when you distrust them on so many others, right? Because that would be strange.

[ Parent ]

at Daily Obama (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:35 AM EST

there are Hillary-hate diaries on the Rec list based on an "anonymous source" of a friend of a friend who heard it somewhere that Hillary really did eat vanilla ice cream!! gasp!
She's a racist!!!
Addison, have you rec'd those diaries?

[ Parent ]

Here.... (none / 0) (#116)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:47:13 AM EST

...I made my diary rec's visible just for you.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Addison/urec

Obviously there are many diaries there that are pro-Obama, and many that are anti-Clinton. But I think the one of the only clownish, non-factual Hillary hit-diary I rec'd was Melquiades' one. But I found that insightful because it pointed out how Obama's problems (Wright) could be dealt with decently for a time with a speech -- obviously it resurfaced later -- while Hillary's problem at the time (Bosnia sniper thing) couldn't. It was a good point about that juncture of the media ginned up idiocy-wars.

Additionally, 5 out my last 7 ratings (that's all I can see, since I almost only 0-rate comments anymore and it's only the last week or whatever of ratings) were to hide-rate comments insulting to Hillary Clinton.

Actually, you know, here's a diary about Hillary Clinton and race I rec'd. So, maybe you're on to something.

[ Parent ]

KOS? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:53:06 AM EST

I thought all the Hillary supporters abandoned that sight weeks ago out of protest.

There are sites now growing by leaps and bounds because of the boycott.

[ Parent ]

I'm not a Hillary supporter... (none / 0) (#128)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Well, you said it. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:58:50 AM EST

Obviously there are many diaries there that are pro-Obama, and many that are anti-Clinton.

[ Parent ]

I don't understand... (none / 0) (#141)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:01:52 AM EST

...many of the diaries I rec'd were pro-Obama, that is they were favorable to Obama. Some of them were anti-Clinton, in that they were critical of Clinton. Those are the sorts of diaries I have rec'd, apparently, obviously not the kinds of diaries y'all would rec, but also not the sorts of diaries that Josey was talking about.

[ Parent ]

: I am still stunned. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:45 AM EST

First like I said before I never partook of the Orange one. Don't like the format and never liked the attitude about politics. So, you keep saying as if there is a difference in being Pro-Obama and anti Hillary. Those are the same point of view, is that not right?

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 1) (#63)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:08 AM EST

But why are they floating the stories? It clearly comes from the Obama campaign. These are the kinds of deals one would think would usually be struck by, you know, talking to the Clinton campaign, not the Huffington Post.

Again, I expect Obama to be the nominee. But this sudden pressure on Clinton to quit now instead of three weeks from now is not in Obama's best interest in the long run since he's going to need some of her supporters. It's all very, very weird.

[ Parent ]

Given (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST

that Obama has consistently outspent her 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 and still never managed to close the deal, I'd say you're reasoning is off-kilter.

[ Parent ]

The DNC elite (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:13:41 AM EST

backing, the netroots, the money, and no SD rush yet. All he can muster is psychological warfare.

[ Parent ]

Here's the insane (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:31:25 AM EST

part of this story.

You're still talking about him catching up to her.

Yet, saying she's done?

I'm sorry. I'm just too rational for that kind of nonsense.

[ Parent ]

No DNC (5.00 / 2) (#173)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:37:29 AM EST

Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Brazille...etc. Stop with the small donors clap trap...I don't buy that BS. Obama is the corporatist candidate, packaged to delude you faux liberals into giving up the last chance for healthcare, workers rights and sane foreign policy. He is here to protect the status quo and make the naive buy his progressivism. On one hand he is not progressive in the other he is so weak and inexperienced that nothing will happen. So, the corporations win and our democracy loses.

[ Parent ]

You are deluded (none / 0) (#202)
by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:13:49 AM EST

There are as many DLC types associated with Obama as there are with Clinton. Policy wise there isn't much difference between then and Obama is the one who plans on kissing up to Republicans.

What are you doing, isn't Obama inevitable? Why are you spending time arguing with us when you you should be helping Barack figure out how to unite the party? Hey, wait a minute. Are you a McCain troll? That would be Rovian and brilliant.

[ Parent ]

: Long-time Dem (none / 0) (#208)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST

here, and this "Are you a Republican" talk is really just a form of denial.
You don't wish to consider the truth, that many people will exit from the Democratic party now.
I understand the urge to "guilt" people.
But it won't work.
It's a legitimate division, based on very legitimate philosophical issues.
Frankly, there are times in history where it's smarter to lose than to back a losing idea.
This is just such a time.

[ Parent ]

Inevitability wasn't ever (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:07:08 AM EST

her message. It was how the critics' message.

[ Parent ]

Hillary's campaign made strategic errors (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:23 AM EST

in their planning for the caucus states and in not being prepared for relentless negative attacks from fellow democrats.

BTW The inevitability meme was entirely a media creation.

[ Parent ]

Right (5.00 / 2) (#121)
by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:49:02 AM EST

Obama gets money from the likes of this lot hand over fist and Clinton gets criticized for trying to keep up?

That dog don't hunt.

[ Parent ]

: He is limiting contributions because (5.00 / 2) (#195)
by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:06:06 AM EST

he hopes to opt out of his pledge to take public financing and limiting the contributions will make breaking that pledge look better.
Meanwhile contributions to the DNC have dried up. Can Obama bankroll them? There are a lot of mouths to feed.
Don't kid yourself, the party will be hurt financially if Clinton's supporters start limiting their contributions. This is a reason the party establishment is worried about the rift that has developed.
My take is that the amount of money raised and spent by both campaigns is obscene and could have been put to much better uses.

[ Parent ]

Deflecting his 3:1 burn rate to get 'her' voters (5.00 / 3) (#153)
by Ellie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:06 AM EST

That's what it was in PA after 6 wks to remain exactly where he started but I never saw any figures of what it was in Indiana.

Ex rectum: this is all about burn. I'd bet that the new projections of spending needed to get a votership she won't turn his way by folding or joining that floated Unity Ticket are sobering. It wouldn't hurt to get her impending donors thinking twice about supporting her continuing run.

Jeralyn or BTD no doubt have a better idea of what's going on.

[ Parent ]

: My opinion (none / 0) (#198)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:20 AM EST

is she needs just enough to pay off the debts, but nowhere what she needed before.
The rest of the primaries don't require a lot of money.
Maybe Oregon....
But W.VA and Kentucky? Just show up.
The big "Ad" war is over.

[ Parent ]
: My opinion (none / 0) (#200)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:09:26 AM EST

is she needs just enough to pay off the debts, but nowhere what she needed before.
The rest of the primaries don't require a lot of money.
Maybe Oregon....
But W.VA and Kentucky? Just show up.
The big "Ad" war is over.

[ Parent ]

Do you have a source? (none / 0) (#188)
by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:55:58 AM EST

A quote, a link, anything that shows that Hillary has asked for any money from Obama? As far as I can tell, this was started by chatter on the Obama side and leaked to the media.

[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#232)
by notableabsence on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST

Hillary planned for the eventual nomination and rather than burn all her money in the primary she set an amount aside into a general election fund that, due to campaign finance laws, she can't touch. I don't think anyone expected the primary to carry on this long, so perhaps in retrospect she should've allocated less to the GE. Regardless, I don't think that you could call it poor budgeting on her campaign's part, planning to win and planning financially for that eventuality.

[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0) (#204)
by dishwithdi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:20:47 AM EST

Obama has out the checkbook and it's a lot more than $10 million. And it's buying silence not paying off campaign debts. The real nuclear option was never on the table. The Clintons refused to go there. But it will all probably come out. Those Republicans won't be so discreet. Watch. They will go after Michelle just the way they went after Hillary only Mrs. Obama won't be able to take it and Obama will dissolve when his myth and his Mrs. are destroyed. America is so Puritanical. It will be our undoing.

[ Parent ]

They Want To Depress The Vote In WV And KY n/t (none / 0) (#219)
by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Obama (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:16 AM EST

is not the nominee. He hasn't reached the 2209 mark. Sorry, end of story.

If he were the nominee, he wouldn't have to beg her to quit, now would he.

[ Parent ]

Please provide the quote... (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST

...where he is begging her to quit.

He doesn't want that at this juncture. Obama needs Clinton to stay in for a while.

[ Parent ]

It's buried somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by mulletov cocktails on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:14 AM EST

in the link(s) where he agreed to the debate(s) after PA....

[ Parent ]

You (none / 0) (#50)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:17 AM EST

don't think these trial balloons are being hoisted by Axelrod? Are you really that naive?

Don't bother answering that. I made the mistake of responding to you. I won't make that mistake again. It's futile.

[ Parent ]

: My last comment... (3.00 / 1) (#61)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST

...on this subject: you don't have any more actual facts than I do. You have suppositions and presumptions. What's futile is asking someone for the quote they're basing a comment on when there's none to be had.

[ Parent ]

Obama is NOT the nominee (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:52 AM EST

And we'll thank you to refrain from anointing him so until Hillary's officially out of this race. Which may or may not happen, I might add, since Obama can't win the general and a whole lot of superdelegates from purple states assuredly know that.

[ Parent ]

but they have no problem paying (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST

David Plouffe and Axelrod, who will be totally exposed in the GE?

ok.

[ Parent ]

Ok..so about money (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:08 AM EST

No money street money in Philadelphia, but he is willing to fork over millions for Hillary. Now, if I was a ward leader in Philadelphia I would really be peeved. Not only that, he gives this big talk about ethics. Sounds like he is trying to buy the race to me.

[ Parent ]

Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST

Thank you for reminding everyone how Obama refused to pay street money in Philly as a rebuttal to all the folks saying he's trying to buy the race based on the media's story about him paying Hillary's debts.

[ Parent ]

No honestly...why not pay poor (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST

people but give millions to a millionaire white racist woman? I just don't get it.

[ Parent ]

This is exactly what is so (5.00 / 3) (#127)
by Just another person on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:03 AM EST

despicable about the Obama supporters

business's that she stiffed

She hasn't closed shop and disappeared. Yet, you are hell-bent on smearing her campaign as "stiffing" small businesses. Please do not spread lies and rumours.

[ Parent ]

Look, this is a smear (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:13 AM EST

and you know it. You guys used this after Ohio. Go back and come up with a new one.

[ Parent ]

Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#144)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:14 AM EST

that's silly talk. They will get paid.

They complained, like all business do. They wanted a 30-day turnaround. ha!

They also, I would be willing to bet, padded. Those bills have to be reviewed. 90-day turn-around or even 6 months is reasonable.

This was an Obama story, planted and cultivated by netroots.

It's garbage.

[ Parent ]

: You know (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:38:13 AM EST

you are just trolling.
Really.
I hate it when people come in and demand answers to fake questions, as though that's dialogue.
No, it's just being controlling and ridiculous.
I can guarantee you that every vendor will be paid.
The Clintons always pay their way.
They are fiscally sound, always have been.
To suggest otherwise?
Irresponsible slander.

[ Parent ]
: Your compassion astounds me (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:51:10 AM EST

why did Obama not pay the poor people with Street money but paid the TV stations and Axelrod's company? C'mon. Spread the wealth. Just giving it to the Creative Class?

[ Parent ]

Not if you buy something on credit (none / 0) (#139)
by Just another person on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM EST

Or maybe you believe they're passing wads of cash across the table?

[ Parent ]

: Let's look at a real money issue, (5.00 / 1) (#226)
by feet on earth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:39:17 AM EST

because the one you making is irrelevant, as many posters already demonstrated.
Let's all think about a money issue that is close and personal to Obama
Obama bought a piece of land from a friend's wife below market price: Rezko
This friend fundraised for him
This friend, (helped by Obama) got funds for affordable housing projects (millions)
The friend run the project in a displaceable way (e.g.: no heat in one of the coldest winter in Chicago)
Obama claimed he did not know this "Keep AAs in the cold" fact, even if protests were reported on local papers in Chicago.
I repeat: this friend fundraised for him
This friend is a shady character to say the least.
So spare us irrelevant money issues

[ Parent ]

Penn may or may not have been good... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:26 AM EST

... but this election wasn't decided by him.

For Hillary to have equal Obama in the national popular vote, with African Americans making up 20% of the vote, she needed to either (1) get more than 10% of the AA vote, or (2) get 60% or more of everyone else.

I don't think the first was ever possible, (false) allegations of race-baiting or not. The second was not impossible, but very nearly so. 60% is a landslide.

She came close, but apparently not close enough.

[ Parent ]

How are AAs 20%? When they're more like 10% of (none / 0) (#110)
by Eleanor A on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:44:56 AM EST

the population?

Not trying to confront, just wondering how I am hearing a different number...

[ Parent ]

Just math, no idea about reality (none / 0) (#131)
by Step Beyond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:56:40 AM EST

I don't know if their numbers are valid, but mathematically speaking they could be 10% of the population and be overwhelming Democratic and thus be 20% of the Dem voters. Or they could have turned out to vote at a higher rate than other groups.

Those are just 2 ideas off the top of my head.

[ Parent ]

: The first one. (none / 0) (#143)
by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST

I took the number from the 2004 exit poll, in which AA's made up 21% of Kerry's voters.
They made up 11% of the overall vote, but as they're almost all Democratic voters, they make up a much larger fraction of the primary vote.
It may be a little more or a little less, but the basic point remains: with such a huge block of voters on your side, you can lose everyone else by quite a bit and still win.
Unfortunately for us, in the general election, at 11% of the vote, the Republican needs only to win everyone else by 10 points to win the popular vote, which they've shown they can do.

[ Parent ]

AA Are A Larger Share Of The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#220)
by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:36 AM EST

than they are of the population.

[ Parent ]

Re-examine (none / 0) (#118)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:47:37 AM EST

the numbers.

10%. Sorry, but he could register and personally drive every single person to vote in the Fall....and he'll get 10%.

[ Parent ]

As mentioned above... (none / 0) (#146)
by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:13 AM EST

Primary vs. general. AA's are 11% of the national vote, but because they're heavily Democratic, they make up a much larger fraction of the Democratic primary vote.

[ Parent ]

: And this is why Obama will lose (none / 0) (#223)
by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:29 AM EST

in the General Election.
The Democratic Party let the progressive left/elitist and the African American dictate the direction of this primary season. The media helped with their love affair with Obama.
In the general, that 11% will mean nothing. McCain is already courting the Hispanic vote and Obama has failed miserably to secure that vote. McCain can get more crossover votes than Obama.

[ Parent ]

Well, I think (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:42:12 AM EST

it makes sense that she had to find her footing. Obama was tough. The first AA candidate? There goes her first woman candidate argument. They share votes? There goes any real policy distinction. And his gift is big crowd oratory. yikes!!

Anyone who argues that this was a true puzzle for her to figure out isn't a fair person.

I was furious with Obama for bashing Clinton, until I figured out that how else could he run against her?

I got over my anger about that.

If you are still spouting the nonsense I see in your post, then I'm guessing you're just not getting over your superficial thinking about this race.

Whatever.......

[ Parent ]

That's fair (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:11:28 AM EST

although I think his accountability is highly questionable.

Wright? Big issue. Bitter? Even bigger.

He's got a sizeable load of baggage, and he's not even really had to ever vote. :)

[ Parent ]

: His speech (none / 0) (#218)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:26:19 AM EST

is now a joke.
I did say, from day 1, what a joke.
Wright is my biggest feather in my own cap. That was a bad speech. The accoaldes given to it?
Insane.
Now, he's a joke due to that speech.

[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:46:07 AM EST

After all, George W. Bush ran a fantastic campaign!

And we all know how that worked out.

[ Parent ]

Anyone (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:53:42 AM EST

who doesn't recognize the hill she had to climb being the wife simply is sexist, frankly.

It's total baloney.

[ Parent ]

Listening to the talking heads (none / 0) (#191)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:02:17 AM EST

requires concentration and a search for true logic. Hillary is non-stop on the campaign trail creating policy, looking at ways to solve the issues she's learning about while she connects with the people of the country.

Obama isn't doing that, it doesn't take much time to stump with his message "Hillary isn't playing nice" and sending people to his web site if they want to know his policies. Although, those aren't current.

He changed his tax policy to the same as it was during the 90's instead of mirroring Reagan's just today. He must think it's safe now that he's pretty sure he's convinced the country that Hillary must drop out.

[ Parent ]

Penn's Fees Are Capped (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:55 AM EST

Unlike Axelrod's. He is earning a few hundred thousand dollars. The rest of the bill from his firm is for vendor purchases made through his firm.

And while you can relax about the money going to Penn, I'd be a little more concerned about why a guy who supposedly has this thing wrapped up is floating offers of more than $10 million to try to get Clinton to quit. Seems like if he's won this thing, he could save his - and your - money.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:01 AM EST

Obama, as I recall, is the only one left who has an old-style percentage deal with his ad people. At the presidential level, that's license to print money.

[ Parent ]

it certainly explains (5.00 / 3) (#123)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:30 AM EST

why his media buyers outspent Clinton by 3 to 1 on television advertising, without any apparent regard to the effectiveness of the ads, now doesn't it?

[ Parent ]

: Neil Oxmann, PA ad genius, (none / 0) (#135)
by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:58:26 AM EST

was supposedly going to do some work for them, but decided against it when he saw how obscene their spending would be.

[ Parent ]

Candidates often pay the debts of their rivals... (none / 0) (#36)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:52 AM EST

...it's not some special thing that only Obama is doing. And you don't even know who's floating the number. AND he doesn't WANT Clinton to quit because it's better if he loses KY and WV to a viable, still running candidate.

As noted above, capped or uncapped, Axelrod was successful, Penn was infamously not so. It's not about the money as far as the disservice to Hillary goes, it's about cost-benefit.

[ Parent ]

I Think You Can Argue about Axelrod's Deal (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:55 AM EST

All those television ads poured into Pennsylvania didn't buy him much. Axelrod got a commission for every one of those ads. It tends to cause candidates to prefer media buys over more traditional voter interaction.

Obama has run, for the most part, a good campaign. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's also not paying Axelrod too much.

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#65)
by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:35 AM EST

...that's a really good point. But I think we all know that in politics advisors are mostly paid not to screw-up (which is a problem). Or, rather, if there's a win any screw-ups are successfully masked.

[ Parent ]

: The Ad Commission Issue (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:22 AM EST

is actually an old problem among democrats. John Kerry paid Bob Shrum enormous fees for ads. If the senior advisor gets paid every time you make an ad buy, guess what they often advise you do?
The Republicans don't do this.
This round both Clinton and Edwards capped ad commissions. And Clinton (I'm not sure about Edwards) capped the total pay out to her top people. For some reason, Obama didn't and went the old way. I've always been surprised by that.

[ Parent ]

Update on Whether Obama Will Offer to Help With Hillary's Campaign Debt | 210 comments (210 topical)

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats