home

Clinton's Finances

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

A minor matter, but Hilzoy is concerned about Clinton's finances and states:

Question: does anyone think that she will take in as much in February as she did in January? I don't.

As I understand it, Clinton raised 13.5 millon (though Politico says $20MM, including Clinton's loan) in January. In February, just online, Clinton had raised 15 million in 15 days. So the answer to Hilzoy's question is actually, yes, Clinton will raise MUCH MORE in February than January.

< Stupid Criminal of the Week | Bush Judicial Nominee: Private Prison Executive With Little Court Experience >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton's Finances | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    15 million (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    is that all primary money?

    Interesting question (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    My understanding is yes.

    IS Obama's money all primary money?

    Parent

    well the intial 32 million in jan was all (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    money i dont know about the 37 figure.

    He at the end of the cycle had 25 million cash on hand and 20 million was primary.  Ill post a link to it after i find the info.

    Parent

    What was the iniital 32MM$ (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:03:49 PM EST
    All primary money? You have a link for that?

    As long as we are asking questions.

    Parent

    start with this one (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    here this has some good info:

    He reported raising nearly $37 million and spending nearly $31 million. His cash balance was $25 million, of which roughly $20 million can be spent on the primary. He reported a comparatively small $1 million in debts, owed largely to just three vendors.


    Parent
    then (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    compare that to:
    She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.


    Parent
    then ofcourse (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    even if she raised 15 million half of it she owes half of it already:
    Hillary Rodham Clinton ended January with $7.6 million in debt -- not including the $5 million personal loan she gave to her campaign


    Parent
    She won;t pay back anything (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST
    until after the campaign.

    Parent
    You missed another damning (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    factoid:  HRC is charging her campaign interest on the loan.

    Parent
    i think... (none / 0) (#43)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    ... that they are required by law to charge interest.

    Otherwise it would have to be considered a donation.  I think.

    Parent

    Makes sense. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST


    Parent
    She will not pay herself back (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    until after the campaign.

    You MUSt know that. Or do you like pretending Clinton is broke?

    Parent

    They're all in debt (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    until the bills are paid.  That's how good accountants keep the books.

    Parent
    So thats why (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    Obama has 1 million in debt versus her 7.5 milliom?  Because of good book keeping?

    Parent
    Plus the money raised in February (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST


    Parent
    He had 20MM on hand (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    She had 9MM on hand.

    She has raised probably 20MM this month.

    He will have raised probably 30MM so far.

    So through February he has had about 50MM to spend to her 29MM.

    that sounds about right to me.

    Parent

    So 20MM of the 37MM (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    was for the primaries.

    You won;t see that point hammered anywhere.

    Parent

    no! read the article (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    20 million of his CASH ON HAND.  Thats is what he had going into the February, with out raising any money!

    Parent
    So please (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    Hammer away Obama went into Feb with 20 million in primary money on hand.  Sounds real damning to me!

    Parent
    Not following you (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    Are you saying the 37 million did not count towards cash on hand? Was already spent? What?

    Is your argument all of it was primary money but 17 million was spent in January?

    Frankly, I do not think you know.

    And I was making that point.

    I am glad you are so insistent on it.

    Parent

    there are two things (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    how much of is 37 million was primary money.  I don't know, but he ended the month with 25 million cash on hand, of which 5 mil is for GE, so even if all his GE money came from the 37 million, then he at least raised 32 million in primary money.  

    Parent
    money (none / 0) (#62)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    Yes... being that Obama "only" had $25M in cash on hand at the end of the month, this would imply that he did spend some of that money that he raised in January.

    From what i can tell we don't know exactly how much of the $37M was for the General Election, but being that he only had $5M in cash on hand for the GE, that would mean that at least $32M of the $37M would have been for the primaries.

    At least that is my understanding of the numbers.  

    Parent

    Yes indeedy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    I was very much making fun of you and jgarza's breathless question - "How Much cna she spend now?"

    BTW, I disagree with you, I bet at least 10MM raised is for the GE.


    Parent

    It says in the (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    article 5 million, so you don't disagree with me, you disagree with politicos reporting!

    Parent
    make fun... (none / 0) (#76)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    ... all you want.

    But I think how much they can actually spend of the money that they have raised is a fair question.

    Further... I have no idea where you get the $10MM number.

    I don't know how else to read those numbers (assuming they are correct) other than to say that a maximum of $5MM of Obama's $37MM in January could have been for the General electoin.

    Parent

    he spent 30 million (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    but he had cash on hand at the beginning of the month, so he added to it.  to come out with 25 million cash on hand.  Is it that difficult to understand?

    Are you saying the 37 million did not count towards cash on hand? Was already spent? What?

    Is your argument all of it was primary money but 17 million was spent in January?



    Parent
    When I kicked in $50, (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    no one asked, and it wasn't specified, if this was a contrib. for the primary and/or the GE.

    Parent
    They'll use it now (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    for sure.

    Parent
    Time to kick in again, but, I (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    suppose that is a futile gesture per Plouffe.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST


    Parent
    thats becasue you haven't (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    donated 2,300 dollars the limit for a primary contribution.

    Parent
    no. (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    BTD... is is 20 of the 25 million on hand that can be used for the primary, not 20 of the 37.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    What happened to the 37MM then?

    Parent
    ok how hard is this to understand? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    he spent some of the money he raised in January in January.  After that he had 20 million left.

    Do you not know what cash on hand means, versus raised money?  

    Are really bad at math or are you just pretending to not get this?

    Parent

    have you seen (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    the price of arugula lately?

    (media, I bet.  Obama has practically bathed the airwaves in commercials)

    Parent

    It was spent (none / 0) (#77)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST
    Much of the money was probably spent.  

    Parent
    BUT... (none / 0) (#2)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    ... do we know how much of that money is for the general election?

    She is still heavily soliciting funds, and sending people to her website (i.e. so that they can first see the fund raising page).  

    I don't doubt that she will raise more in Feb, but I am still not convinced that she is not having money troubles.

    As I stated before (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    My understanding is that it is.

    But I turn the question around, is Obama's money all primary money?

    Parent

    I find that impossible to believe (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    Impossible.

    No even 100k was for the GE?

    I do not believe that for a minute.

    Do you?

    Parent

    he raised 37 million (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    he was just reporting primary money at the time of that figure.  

    Parent
    Got it (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Wait... (none / 0) (#80)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    What Plouffe said was that the 32 million could be spent to get the nomination.

    This would mean that the $5MM would be designated for the General Election.

    Parent

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    Now that makes sense.

    Parent
    well he raised (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    37 million in jan so toss in the 5 million and assume all his ge money came in Jan. and you get 32 million for primary

    Parent
    More reason to retract (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    the public financing pledge.

    Parent
    I'm not sure why this is an issue (none / 0) (#108)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    Public financing doesn't really matter because the PACs will do all of the heavy lifting.  It has already started--and benefitted many of the candidates.

    Why not try to look good by sticking to his word and let the PACs do the rest?  It's a bit unseemly that we are talking about these publicly announced large sums of money when the average American can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads.

    (and was it just Obama's word on the pledge?  Because I saw McCain claiming that Obama signed an actual document, which seems very odd to me)

    Parent

    Here is a map (none / 0) (#113)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    from a open source ....Will Money Translate into Primary Votes?

    This site is full of election finance information.

    Parent

    Here is a map (none / 0) (#115)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    from a open source ....Money Translate Primary Votes

    This site is full of election finance information.

    Parent

    Texas Hold Em (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    Yes she must go all in.

    Worry about more money AFTER March 4.

    As Obama apparently is doing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    with such a higher proportion from donors for the primary season.  That offers more opportunity for intriguing analysis of that campaign, too.

    Parent
    this chatter (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    seems to fit in nicely with the other noise coming out of the Obama campaign calling for Clinton to bow out.  I even heard a pundit on CNN saying, literally, "Stick a fork in her."  Seems awfully odd considering how close she is in delegates and how well she is still polling (not that polls matter, but they do in some weird way)

    Reminds me of what the repubs did to Gore, trying to humiliate him out of ceding Florida and not waiting for the votes to be counted.  They ridiculed him, made him seem like an egoist and a sore loser and generally hammered him (with the press's help) into backing down.

    I called it bullying then and I call it bullying now.  To ignore these big states coming up as if Clinton wins won't matter is done at Obama's peril.

    I agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    And Hilzoy is certainly a fierce Obama supporter. I found it surprising that she did not know about Clinton's fundraisng this month.

    I hope this information proves helpful to her.

    Parent

    Oh, snark. So now you are (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
    concern-trolling a concern troll? :-)

    Parent
    Hilzoy was one of my favorites (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    Not anymore. Not after she ridiculed me for having legitimate concerns about what I believe where sexist remarks.

    She posted a comment in this thread and you can see my reply to her. It bothered me a lot as you will see.

    Parent

    And your exchange (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    reminds me to donate again to the Clinton campaign today.  Payday tomorrow. :-)

    Parent
    I was annoyed enough to leave ObWi (none / 0) (#129)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:28:07 PM EST
    after having been there from the beginning, or nearly.

    Quite a few months ago she said she was looking for reasons to oppose HRC, and my jaw dropped.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#93)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    If Obama had lost the last ten primaries and had fallen behind in the delegate count I'm sure that H. Clinton would console him, tell him to keep it up, and encourage him to continue to fight. Right?

    No, her people would be telling anyone that would listen that Obama's continued campaign is only going to hurt party unity. It was time to step aside, face reality, admit defeat and join in fighting McCain.

    So how is H. Clinton going to snag 65% of the pledged delegates from here on out? It's not going to happen. She probably won't get half of of them. That means her camp has to be preparing for the battle for superdelegates at the convention. When does ambition step aside for the best of the party and the country?

    Parent

    As for the debts (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    NONE of them will be paid until the campaign is over.

    You MUST know that.

    Well, you have to pay off some of the debt (none / 0) (#118)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    Like this one.

    You can't just run around racking up tons of debt without paying any of it off.  Sure, some vendors will offer credit, but some others will require cash.  If word gets around that you don't plan to pay off debt until after the campaign, then fewer vendors will offer credit.  These campaign debts can stick around for years after the campaign and it's a lot more difficult to raise money to pay them off afterwards.

    Long story short: Fundraising numbers DO count.

    Parent

    i can top that... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Turkana on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    smintheus, february 6:

    As we saw with Giuliani, when presidential candidates decide to get in touch with the working poor by surrounding themselves with unpaid staff, that can be a sign of a campaign's impending collapse.

    my response, at tlc...

    I remeber that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    People CAN be silly can't they?

    You know what is funny, Obama can win decisively on March 4.

    Why not LET HIM do that and then celebrate?

    Strange the attitudes you see about all this.

    Parent

    as confident as the obama camp claims to be (none / 0) (#16)
    by Turkana on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    why not ride it out, let hillary have her last chance, and then celebrate?

    Parent
    The infamous David Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    was spotted on the ground in North Carolina today.  He sd. he's working the donors.  Maybe, maybe not.  Doesn't Edwards live in NC?

    Parent
    seems clear to me (none / 0) (#21)
    by Turkana on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    that edwards won't endorse obama. should hillary pull it off, march 4, i wouldn't be surprised to see him endorse her, soon thereafter.

    Parent
    If he had a smidgen of guts, he'd (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM EST
    endorse now.  

    Parent
    At least one of Edwards former law partners (none / 0) (#82)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    endorsed Obama after Edwards suspended his campaign.


    Parent
    It is strange indeed (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:09:08 PM EST
    The Big Dog said yesterday that if Hillary does not win TXa nd OH that's it.

    So all Obama has to do is win TX and OH.

    Why not wait till then?

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Only needs to win TX OR OH, not both.  Either one and Clinton is de toast.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    But both would be better.

    Parent
    So off-topic, (none / 0) (#122)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    since the narrative seems to be favoring an Obama victory in one of those states right now, do you think Clinton still needs to be his VP?  

    Parent
    Deferred gratification is said (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    to not be a characteristic of too many Americans today.  Which Americans are least capable of it is interesting.

    Parent
    Yeah. Just like MLB. Have the (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    champagne, shires, hats, and plastic clad lockers ready just in case.  

    Parent
    true story (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Turkana on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    "yes, we can" was the motto of my high school's two-time state championship football team. in the late '70s. wish i still had one of the tee-shirts.

    Parent
    This may explain who our (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    team wasn't 2-time champ.  Our motto:  Go Get 'Em, Greyhounds.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    Yeah, that is a stinky motto.

    Parent
    Plus the school colors: (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    purple and gray

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, my high school's team name (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    was, as it was a Catholic school named for a pope . . . yes, we were "the Popes."  And thus, the women's teams were -- wait for it -- "the Lady Popes."  And then there were the rivalries with other Catholic schools named for other levels in the hierarchy.  Fortunately, our high school had  great teams and usually won -- but there always were flukes, when the headlines read "Cardinals Beat Popes" or "Bishops Beat Popes."  

    And yes, those schools also have, to this day, teams called "Lady Cardinals" and "Lady Bishops."  Having left the church -- well, it left me -- I now can admit that I always wondered whether all these team names caused a few heart attacks in the Vatican.                               

    Parent

    Apparently some of the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    McCain's campaign, who were let go, have come back to work for free.

    Parent
    fundraising reports in Jan (none / 0) (#23)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    Politico notes that the fundraising reports of Jan say:
    Clinton raised about $20 million in January, including her loan. She spent nearly $29 million during the month.

    She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.

    But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.

    More than $2 million of the red ink is owed to chief consultant and adviser, Mark Penn.

    For Obama:

    He reported raising nearly $37 million and spending nearly $31 million. His cash balance was $25 million, of which roughly $20 million can be spent on the primary. He reported a comparatively small $1 million in debts, owed largely to just three vendors.

    Note: Texas has three of the most expensive eleven media markets in the US.  

    Any possibility Obama campaign (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    or surrogates are giving financial encouragement to people to storm the gates of the TX caucuses?  I just read about how the caucus goers for Obama are lined up and ready to go.

    Parent
    I went to the FEC site (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    and I see no January reports.

    Do you have access to them?

    Parent

    there a story on the Jan finances (none / 0) (#41)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    here

    Parent
    I saw that story (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    I would like to see the reports.

    Here is a question for you - the Clinton campaign self reported 13.5 million raised, why would they underreport their own fundraising?

    Something does not square here.

    Parent

    Scandal brewing? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:27:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually it makes sense (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    the 20 MM includes her loan.

    So it was 15 million.

    And the point stands, Clinton has already exceed January and will be well beyond it for February.

    Parent

    Not that (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    it will be enough, as you know.  Ground game is hella expensive in big states, not to mention commercials.

    Parent
    I linked to the reports (none / 0) (#68)
    by hilzoy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    in the first sentence of my post.

    As to Feb. fundraising: I'm curious about a few things, like how much is for the primaries, and also whether it includes loans from the Clintons to the campaign. I didn't feel that I was clear enough on its nature to include it. But, again, I would be surprised if they were not in considerably worse shape at  the end of Feb. than at the end of Jan. And they weren't in very good shape at the end of Jan.

    Parent

    You are curious about that Hilzoy? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    Unless the Clintons executed an online loan, I think the answer is pretty clear.

    What do you think?

    But let me be perfectly frank with you, it is time to stop the gloating. Obama is very likely to win the nomination on March 4.

    Is that too long a time to wait for you to have Clinton disappear?

    The behavior of the Left blogs, including yours, towards the Clintons, has been frightfully wrong.

    And your inability to ask, or heck, even accept, any questions about Obama, has been wrongheaded.

    I personally was very offended by what you wrote about me and no, I have not forgotten it. My very real concerns about what I perceived to be sexist remarks was ridiculed by you. Couple that with you r willingness to post at the site of a known racialist, Bell Curve supporter, supporter of the awful statements of Lawrence Summers and vilifier of person of the Left has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

    I truly thought better of you. It upsets me a lot that you have joined the Sully style of denigrating legitimate concerns, even if you disagreed with them, about sexism and racism.

    I won't soon forget.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    that at a certain point, legitimate concerns become the main story pushed by some.  And that isn't enough to get a candidate elected.  It seems that Talkleft has been on the warpath against supposed sexism for weeks now.  

    But railing against it doesn't help anything!  Pointing out that people are being unfair doesn't garner voters or votes.  And after a while, it starts to smack of pettiness and desperation.  It's not helpful!

    Parent

    I think you may mean (none / 0) (#120)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    railing about it doesn't help Obama.

    Parent
    It's important in and of itself (none / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Supposed sexism? (none / 0) (#125)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    This may be your opinoin... but it is not a fact!

    It seems that Talkleft has been on the warpath against supposed sexism for weeks now.
     

    I totally disagree. No matter who it was against .... Michelle or Hillary.. some one needed to call the media out on "sexist remarks".

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    what was the result?  What good came out of it?  Who did it help?

    That time and energy would have been better spent organizing for your candidate.  As it is, the whole incident will soon fade into memory.  It cannot be said that a lasting change or impression will have been made upon anyone.

    It isn't ENOUGH to be righteously angry.  That's what many here missed.  It's far more important to act productively.  That wasn't done at all.  And the anger that was displayed by many here did NOT attract new voters.

    Sad, in the end.

    Parent

    No new voters here (none / 0) (#131)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    And the anger that was displayed by many here did NOT attract new voters.

    Most bloggers here are active voters.

    What makes you think we just "rant and rave". Several of us wrote emails and made phone calls.

    Parent

    Here is a report (none / 0) (#107)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    at open secret

    Parent
    I get it now (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    It was 15 plus the 5 million dollar loan.

    That makes sense.

    Parent

    Here's what I get now: (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    Plouffe did say HRC should quit, but apparently he didn't explicitly say she should quit b/4 TX and Ohio. Just before the convention.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    He said she should quit when she can not have more of the pledged delegates and that EVEN IF she won TX, OH and PA she can not have the most pledged delegates.

    Therefore, she should quit NOW as she can never have the most pledged delegates.

    The Guardian reporter got it right.

    The rest of the Media proved again how much they stink.

    It really WAS the headline of the call.


    Parent

    Have you submitted (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    a question to CNN for tonight based on Plouffe's conference call?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST


    Parent
    uhm (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    did she round the year with no money in her coffers?  Seems hard to believe she had no cash on hand Jan 1.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#91)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    Where in the post did it say or imply that Clinton's "coffers" were empty on January 1st?

    The comment that you are replying to basically says that

    Cash raised in Jan: 20MM
    Cash spent in Jan: 29MM
    Cash on hand at end of month: 29MM (with 20MM being for the GE)

    That would mean that he had about 38MM on hand at the beginning of the month, though some of that was clearly designated for the GE.

    Parent

    the issue was cash on hand (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    Folks were working on a theory that assumed Clinton was out of money based on reports of donations vs expenditures in January.  I raised a quite reasonable question, which is--didn't she have money left over from 07, and wouldn't that balance be carried forward?

    Perhaps you are confused because the comment you cite is not the one to which I was replying.

    Parent

    kathy... (none / 0) (#110)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    I replied to the comment that was the parent of your comment.

    I think that the numbers have been pretty clear.  Hillary has money, but it appears that a significant amount of that money cannot be spent on any primary.

    As for the starting balance, I already addressed that.  Yes, she did have money at the beginning of the month.

    Parent

    not correct (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    Folks were working on a theory that assumed Clinton was out of money based on reports of donations vs expenditures in January.

    No one was working on "theories," people were looking at the financial statement she released which clearly states her financial situation included carried over balances.

    here is an article

    She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.

    But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.



    Parent
    I was speaking to the original post (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    which seemed to leave this out:

    Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election.

    To me it seems to have gotten lost in the crossfire.

    29mm, less 20mm = 9mm less the 5mm loan = 4mm...where is the rollover balance accounted for?  Also, where is the 15mm+ raised in Jan?

    Parent

    okay... (none / 0) (#128)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    The rollover IS accounted for.

    Look at the following:

    Cash on 1/1: 13 MM (for primary)
    Money raised in Jan: 20MM (mix of primary and GE)
    Money Spent in Jan:  29MM
    Cash on hand at end of month: 29MM (9MM for primary)

    So that means that she had 13MM, raised an unknown amount of money for the primary, spend 20MM, and now has 9MM.

    The 15MM is included in the money raised (plus the 5MM loan), and some/much of that money was also spent in Jan.  

    If the rollover hadn't been accounted for, she would be out of money.

    Parent

    I don't like the term "concern troll" (none / 0) (#59)
    by jerry on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    "Concern troll" usually is used to shutdown dialogue within a thread.  But given it's standard definition, and my recollection of where Hilzoy stands on O vs. C....

    It seems to fit.

    You said it (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    Not me.

    Parent
    How is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    that not a valid question.  according to the politico article she had virtually zero cash on hand.

    She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.

    But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.

    There have been ten contests and the huge states of Texas and Ohio, is it unreasonable to wonder if she spent all the money she has raised?  

    Here's the clue I'll be (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    watching for during tonight's debate:  is HRC wearing the same thing she wore for the last debate?

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#101)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    will she ask for money during the debate?

    Parent
    She did a pretty good job (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    of announcing the Hallmark deal at the end of one debate.

    Parent
    Considering (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cycloptichorn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    what a horrendous waste of time and money that fiasco was, I don't know that I would point to that as an accomplishment!

    Parent
    haha... (none / 0) (#109)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    ... probably not, but she may try to send people to her website where they will first have to see the donation page.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:55:21 PM EST


    Parent
    How is what not a valid question? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:47:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST
    You'll like my next post then reiterating that Obama needs to renounce his public financing pledge.

    Primary campaigns (none / 0) (#124)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:45:45 PM EST
    help build party infrastructure for the general.  If Obama is the eventual nominee, that's really going to help in OH and PA.  For that reason alone, barring a turn by the Clintons to scorched-earth campaigning or some massive debate gaffe, I'm sure the Obama camp wants to continue for a few more weeks still.

    Clinton's Finances | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment