Hillary Loans Her Campaign $5 Million

By Big Tent Democrat

This is bad news for the Clinton campaign:

Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson sends over the following:
Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. 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.

So it is clear that the Clinton campaign DOES have money troubles. This is the very bad news from yesterday. I must admit I am surprised. And yes, this does change my thinking somewhat about who won Super Tuesday. If Obama forced Clinton to these extremes, then it was more of a positive for Obama than I thought.

I could think of mitigating circumstances for this (i.e. no time for fundraising) but that does not really wash. If she can not get her fundraising groove back, this will be a decided advantage for Obama.

< Obama And Hillary's Strengths On Super Tuesday | From The "Um, Ok" File >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If Barack wins the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    It's going to be entertaining...because he actually says that Republicans won't play dirtier than the Clintons already have.

    Man, is he ever going to get cold-cocked.

    If he believes his own sound bite he will (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    Not Good (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    I agree this isn't good news for Clinton and does have me worried.  The only silver lining - and it's a mighty thin lining - is that it's likely to increase her donations in the short run and it makes Obama appear to be even more of the frontrunner/establishment candidate.  Like her husband, Clinton seems to run best from behind.  Again, that's mostly cold comfort.

    The upcoming schedule is a mixed bag for Clinton.  It is mostly states Obama should win, so she doesn't have to go all out to ensure a win.  At the same time, she needs to keep it close and, especially in caucus states, that requires organization and staff which equals $$.  

    I predict the Big Dog will be leaving the campaign trail and hitting the money trail.

    I don't think this kills her, but it is a wound she needs to fix or else it will slowly kill her over the next couple of months.    

    I second your prediction. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:46:19 PM EST
    BDB (none / 0) (#80)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    I think that you are right--and it has helped boost campaign donations, at least among the folks I know. (Oculus, you can give a post office box, work address  or just make one up; federal law requires they make every effort to get the info)  It also takes away any claim that Obama has about being the underdog.

    What we (Hillary folks, I mean) need to see now is the press doing its job more.  We need to catch him on the inconsistencies, we need Rezko to come to the forefront and we need, most of all, for folks to see the dirty campaign mailers Obama is sending out: one trashing universal healthcare and one trashing the Clinton years.

    I'd really like for John Edwards to stand up to all of this crap, too.  Especially on the lobbyist side.  I mean, fair is fair.  Obama has just as many lobbyists pumping money into his campaign as Hillary does.  You don't raise 30mm bucks in one month from selling $3 bumper stickers.


    ummm not really (none / 0) (#93)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
    Hillary gets the most money from lobbyists of any candidate from either party. She took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007. Obama does not take money from lobbyists. Although, to be fair, his campaign has accepted $86,282 in personal donations from employees of firms that lobby.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    Obama does take money from state lobbyists.  He also permits relatives of lobbyists - like their spouses - to donate money.  He also permits persons who run firms that include lobbying among their activities to contribute to his campaign.  And he permits high level campaign workers to be registered federal lobbyists, including at least one who chose to register as a federal lobbyist after joining the Obama campaign.  Hmmm, I wonder why an Obama campaign worker would think becoming a federal lobbyist would be a worthwhile thing to do.  And I'm not even going to get into his cozy relationship with Rezko.

    The hypocrisy coming from Obama on lobbyists and paid corporate interests is stunning.  Just like 527s are evil, except if they support him.

    Basically, Obama believes anyone who supports his opponent is a terrible influence on government, but anyone who supports him has only the best of motives and intentions.


    Or is there (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    a difference in the transparency between the candidates in reporting the lobbyists contributions?  

    A list of some articles that lead me to believe that Obama has more lobbyist support than is just apparent from filings and campaign policies.  

    PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise;  Data contrast with his theme

    Obama's K Street project
    Barack Obama Inc.:  The birth of a Washington machine

    Roll Call's White House K Street Endorsements Watch

    Lobbyists on Obama's '08 payroll


    ummmmm (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    yes, he does.  Or are you going to tell me a state lobbyist for Pfizer does not talk to the national lobbyists in DC?  Or that the law firms that represent lobbyists exclusively have no ties to DC?  Are you going to tell me personal letters he sent out to lobbyists asking them to donate time to his campaign (oh, and money, if they felt like doing it personally) makes him clean?  What is the difference between Exceleron giving him millions and people who "happen to work" at Exceleron giving him millions?  It's a personal choice--is that right?  They expect nothing in return?

    This is more Obama hairsplitting, and it is getting to the point of being ludicrous.  You do not raise 30mm in one month by selling bumper stickers.

    "The Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobby operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in state capitals including Springfield, Ill., Tallahassee, Fla., and Sacramento, Calif., although some deal with national clients and issues."

    "He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," an analyst with the Campaign Finance Institute, Stephen Weissman, said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."


    When are you people going to realize that's not the sun that's shining out of his a*s


    Either one of them..... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:30:26 AM EST
    would take a starving man's last dime.

    They're whores folks.  They sell influence for a living.


    Not good for her (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    The best read on this is that she's playing expectations, but that's pretty thin. I never expected her to have money troubles. Never.

    I am truly shocked (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    Me, Too (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    The only explanation I can think of is that she pulls more support from working class and lower income democrats (there are advantages to being the wine track candidate) so she's at a disadvantage in the number of folks who can give. Or most of her supporters didn't realize money would be an issue and so have been slower to pony up.  

    Or both.  

    Or neither.  



    Disagree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    This is about managing your funds.

    This is a black mark against the Clinton campaign.

    Very bad job.


    What's curious (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    is that it looked like she had a better arrangement with her media people than Obama did. (Remember the whole discussion about percentages a couple of months ago?)

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    that Rupert Murdoch is really working class blue collar all the way.

    This is the kind of news (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    that makes the vultures appear. There are two truly tangible things in a campaign: money and votes. Too much time without one or the other and your campaign falls apart.

    Especially when it starts to look like (none / 0) (#102)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    she's having to spend more to keep up than he is.

    Where can republicans (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    like me send money to keep Hilliary in the race?

    I will be disapointed if Obama takes her out.   I cherish the opportunity to make up for my previous Clinton votes with a McCain vote.

    How much can I give?

    You can give (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST


    Please post the receipt when you're finished so we can praise you for your mastery.


    It's money well spent (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    I started giving political contributions when I realized that all of the social services and educational institutions I support would be much better off if I had the right administration.  A Hillary Clinton administration is the one we need.  I have maxed to Hillary for the primary which is more than I ever expected to give, ever.  I had my parents max and I have asked as many people as possible to do all that they can.  This is critical and I can forgo a vacation this year to get the country I want.

    Uh oh new scandal (none / 0) (#122)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    and she isn't even president yet.


    What's the deal with this BTD?  Is this legit or just another RWC hoodwink?


    oh, please (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    Are you freakin' kidding me?  This is the best stuff you can come up with?   Pathetic.

    Yawn (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    I love it when so called "liberals" source right wing hate sites.

    Slado (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:34:56 PM EST
    Is no liberal. He is a Republican, torture supporter, aka Bushlicker.

    Thanks sqeaky (none / 0) (#158)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:14:16 AM EST
    for the clarification :>)

    My guess (none / 0) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST
    She probably didn't need to take out the loan (i.e. could've just rolled back some ad buys a bit).

    But, she gambled and went for broke, figuring that if she was going to have any shot at taking him out, it would be on Super Tuesday. It doesn't look like that worked out for her.

    Whatever the calculation (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    the lack of ready funds is really bad.

    She has paid Penn 4 million. He should refund the money considering he stinks.


    Perhaps George Soros will ride in (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    to save the damsel in distress?

    Does not work that way (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    He's not "maxed out." I read the other (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    day he hasn't contributed to any Pres. prim. candidate yet.  

    Hopefully.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    he's saving it for a candidate worth supporting....like Nader.

    Whew (none / 0) (#2)
    by bob5540 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    Saves your butt about last night's prediction, doesn't it? If Obama wins, it will clearly be the fundraising. He woulda been toast except for the fundraising, who could have known...heh

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    I am surprised by this. If you aren't well you are a better man than I Gunga Din.

    I thought the money was at parity. I was wrong.

    That certainly makes a big difference.


    HC's in trouble (none / 0) (#138)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    Not only did she lend her campgain money, but even with it, Obama outraised her by something like $32m to $13.5m.

    Further, Obama got over 60% in six states: Alaska (over 70%), Colorado, Georgia, Idaho (over 70%), Illinois, Kansas (over 70%), Minnesota, North Dakota; HC, only Arkansas

    Further, Obama seems to be ahead in delagates won in the primary.  (Note, "Hillary advisers also disputed the Obama camp's claim of a lead among delegates, arguing that they were ahead when you factor in superdelegates."  So, if you don't factor in superdelegates?)

    The primaries in the rest of the month clearly favor Obama.  HC might have the look of a loser come March, and have some real money problems by the time we get to Texas.

    I write this as a dispassionate observer -- I like them both.


    her loan not included (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    her loan is not included in the $13,000,000 which of course does not compare to Obama's $32,000,000.  The campaign needs to do better, but a lot of her supporters need to know that $10 would go a long way.  Ask everyone you know to do something, we can all make a difference.  

    I never expected this so soon. (none / 0) (#4)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    I thought she was behind him in funds but not to the extent she would loan her campaign money...and it explains why there were so few campaign commercials from Clinton in the last few days before super Tuesday while Obama had them running pretty regularly.

    commercials in the NY city area (none / 0) (#6)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    Well if she wasted money advertising in NY (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:14:59 PM EST
    then shame on her.

    Actually it explains the lack of presence in the caucus states and shows how it bit her hard.


    it actually does show their strategy...they (none / 0) (#70)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    gambled on the big states, and thought that they could take him out yesterday.  Figured that they would get enough residual votes in the other smaller states and ride a big momentum wave and knock him out.  This explains their lack of organization or competitiveness in any of the caucuses. they were banking on him doing poor across the board.  When he over performed in the caucuses due to her lack of participation, that is what kept it close.  Probably Mark Penn's idea.  He is a total schumuck and should have been fired months ago.  

    This is far more surprising that I would have thought. It definitely puts Obama in the driver's seat.  If he can blitz the rest of the FEB primaries/caucuses with advertising (which he is doing) and wins them as convincingly as he won the ones, last night, he will set up knock out opportunity #2 with Texas and Ohio.  If she is out of money then (which every indication is that she is) and he wins one or both, decisively, she is done.


    I agree with this (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:03:30 PM EST
    Obama will get another shot at a knockout.

    !!! She's not out of money, she actually (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    had a bit more heading into Super Tuesday:

    Clinton ending cash per FEC 12/31/07 - $37,947,874
    January contributions                   13,500,000
    Cash on hand                            51,447,874

    Obama ending cash per FEC 12/31/07  -  $18,626,248
    January contributions                   32,000,000      
    Cash on hand                            50,626,248

    Disbursements for the entire election cycle:
    Obama   $85,176,289
    Clinton $80,353,785

    And disbusements don't count his Super Bowl ad, yet to be billed.  But now, she -- and he -- have to look at needing more for an extended primary/caucus battle, and adjusting strategies as to how much was saved the the general election battle that was supposed to start today.


    Wishful thinking (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    Until we know how much they spent, we dont' know how much they have.

    I just don't see how Hillary could have spent over 40 Million in one month. That makes no logical sense to me (meaning I don't think everything is as bad as people think it is).

    Gotta remember: She's a Clinton. She's forgotten more political moves than Obama will ever learn.

    That said, I'm making a donation.


    blogtopus (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Good for you.  Lots of friends are doing the same, I think.

    I'm going with the theory that Obama's 30mm announcement made them step things up.  You're right; the Clintons have played this game before.

    What was it Tracy said...chess, not checkers...?


    Not my wishes or thinking (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    just info linked (in the original) to FEC.

    Now, I don't understand your info.  Where did you see that she spent that much in a month?  Subtracting from earlier info?  If so, link?

    Btw, I made my first donation today, too -- for the three-day drive.  And I broke my cardinal rule in doing so, which is to wait to see if the candidate is so confident as to put in money, too.  

    And then I read that she did.  So I did good, and so will you.:-)


    Testimonial. Hillary Clinton is (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    very well brought-up, if the test is quick turn around on thank you notes.  You click "submit" and a thank you email arrives w/i seconds.  Very classy.  

    I thought so, too (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    and their emails have been every couple of days from the national office -- quick, to the point, etc.

    And now I get very tech-savvy emails from the local office here for our primary, also showing efficiency in sending the lists to the local office and in their format, very quick for local volunteer directors to do, with an RSVP function all set up, etc.

    Several events, meetups, etc., being organized here for Clinton in a couple of days.  Good timing.  Obama events were to start here today but all were canceled -- since our foot of snow has become a blizzard, everything is closed (even the airport, the bus system, even plows pulled off the road for driver safety, as there have been many bad accidents and fatalities).  And the storm that was supposed to stop hours ago now has been extended to go on for hours more. . . .

    It has turned into one of the top-10 snowiest winters in Wisconsin.  Hope we get a break on primary day to GOTV!


    Let's see if they respond to my (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    inquiry about how to avoid having my name and address searchable on Huff Post.

    How about this (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    HALPERIN'S TAKE: Why Would the Clintons Contribute Their Own Money to Her Campaign All of a Sudden?
    1. They were spooked by Obama's monster January fundraising haul.
    2. An old rule they learned in Arkansas: never lose an election because you are outspent on TV ads.
    3. They have more personal wealth than ever before.
    4. They knew that a bad Super Tuesday could have ended her campaign.
    5. The pool of wealthy donors not infected with Clinton Fatigue is largely maxed out and tapped out.
    6. Because they are from the Al Davis school of politics: Just win, baby.

    No... (none / 0) (#87)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    she actually had a bit more heading into Super Tuesday:
    No... all this means is that she has more money on 12/31.  We don't know what the expenditures have been since then.  

    Not quite (none / 0) (#111)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    We know that both had taken in relatively the same in cash thru the end of January.  We know their expenditures were about the same thru the end of the year.  

    We don't know their expenditures since 12/31.  We don't know what their strategy is toward spending from this day forward.  


    Yep, but I saw many media many statements (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    that she was outspent in every Super Tuesday state.  So we'll have to see if that was so -- considering the source -- when new figures become available.

    I have been trying to find (none / 0) (#89)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    information on expenditures for ads since 12/31 without success.  The electioneering filings that I have found so far are only for PAC's and committees.  

    The question that needs to be answered is whether Hillary outspent Obama from the end of the year through super Tuesday or is she planning to significantly ramp up her spending post super Tuesday?  

    Per CQ Politics, the campaigns will have to begin filing monthly funding reports February 20 which will help us track contributions more frequently.  


    Upthread: Obama spent $11 million (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    on Super Bowl advertising alone.

    A great game, but I doubt it was worth THAT sum.


    Where? (none / 0) (#115)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    The only number I read was that Obama spent 11M on ads leading up to Super Tuesday.  It wasn't on the Super Bowl.

    what, really? (none / 0) (#116)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    I only saw one 15 second commercial for him.  I thought it was $2.7 mil for a 30 second spot....

    I found an AP article (none / 0) (#132)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    on the Super Bowl buy.  It was a regional purchase that the Obama campaign reports cost about $250,000.  The same article notes that each campaign was spending about $1.5 million a day on advertising for super Tuesday.  Also, the Clinton campaign had to pay for their hour on the Hallmark Channel for her town hall but there was no figure given for the actual expenditure.  



    more like a quarter million (none / 0) (#129)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    he had one short spot on the local feed into some ST states.

    Saw this same thing at cqpolitics (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:13:05 PM EST
    and unless there is a huge difference in burn rate between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, I don't see how Obama can be much better off.  Those super bowl ads he ran had to be expensive!  Anyone wish to try and explain that?

    With something other than His Preciousness exudes money.


    I do agree with much else you say (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    about the gamble, not predicting (not sure anyone could) the way the caucuses would go -- as they never have brought out more than party faithful, so that was good strategy by the Obama campaign.  (And, of course, some called caucuses are not exactly, but are six-hour primaries.)

    And I agree re several of the February states, with their caucuses, looking good for him.  If she hangs in there with a couple of wins, we'll be looking at a whole different sort of March Madness.


    But that's the thing...does she spend money (none / 0) (#97)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    in the caucus states this month full press or does she try to eek out either Virginia or Wisconsin or make a stand in Texas.  I say she tries to make a stand in Texas.  And then it goes back to Obama who will now have 1 month to try and woo the Latinos in Texas more to his side.  If he does ( and he will have the time to do so vs the Super Tuesday Scenario where time ran out in CA and MA) then it will look really bad for Hillary.  

    But, this might turn things around for her.  Where are all the latinos that voted for her...shouldn't they be contributing to her campaign....that will remain to be seen.


    stupid gamble that shows a misundersanding of math (none / 0) (#139)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    gambled on the big states, and thought that they could take him out yesterday

    If that was the strategy, somebody didn't explain basic math to them.

    In a district with four delegates, even winning 59% of the vote gets you only a 2-2 split in the delegates.  So going for a "big" win in, say, California doesn't get you much, unless she could have gotten over 60% in a whole lot of districts -- which would have been a landslide, and the whole world knew Calif would not be a landslide.


    Paid media is overrated (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    But paid staff in states is not.

    That takes dollars.

    This is a serious blow to the Clinton campaign if they can not kick up the fundraising.


    yes. good point about paid staff and kicking up (none / 0) (#11)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    fundraising. I wonder if they can do raise the necessary money.

    She needs to shed the dead weight (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    Mark Penn has wasted 4 million dollars.

    Maybe now he can be fired.


    Mark Penn should be packing his bags now (none / 0) (#39)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    Although if he left right after the loan story, it would be more negative publicity for the campaign. They need to ride the loan story out for a little while.

    A perfect excuse (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    Get rid of him Hillary.

    Let's suppose she does. Who should (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    she hire?  What direction should her campaign take for the future?  Come on, BTD, help her out a little here.  

    They guy who will work for free (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST

    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    She was probably hoping to put Obama to bed as quickly as possible to neutralize his fundraising advantage. Spent her wad too early looks like now that this thing is gonna be a marathon.

    I'd say this gives more weight to the possibility that Obama goes 9 for 9 this month - she just doesn't have the money to compete in what are mostly going to be caucus get out the vote efforts, or to stem the media narrative that she's falling behind.

    This also clears up her asking for another debate on Fox - it wasn't because she just decided to hell with what the blogs think - she's really going to need the extra media from another debate.


    Of course (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    Obama will say no to that.

    Oprah is an unlimited bank account. (none / 0) (#37)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    As she actually has a bit more all together (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    it may be different strategies in what to save for the general election, too.  And those strategies could be changing now, since the general election campaign did not start today. . . .

    Doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    with what's reported here . I guess it could be out of date.

    When you loan your campaign money (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    IT means you ran out of money.

    Or you're bluffing nt (none / 0) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    that would be an odd bluff (none / 0) (#22)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    Make the other guy think you're (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    crumbling and he can cruise to victory, then pounce.

    hahaha... (none / 0) (#59)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    ... that has to be one of the funniest justifications of something like this that I have ever seen.

    There is absolutely no way that the Clinton campaign would "bluff" about something like this.

    No way.


    that report ends Q4 (none / 0) (#32)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    So it doesn't show the gaining and spending for Jan or Feb. With all the states in those two months big money had to have been spent by both candidates. Plus, January was when Clinton took in $13 mil vs Obama's $32 mil. Although, I did see Wolfson said the $13 mil in January did not include the $5 mil self-loan.

    Ah, that helps to know (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    the Jan total did not include the loan.  That's better. Thanks.

    yeah but (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    was that all primary money?
    probably not or they would have said so.

    Why did her campaign disclose the loan? (none / 0) (#15)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    Do they have to disclose it or was it leaked somehow and they were forced to confirm it?

    My take (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    Get the bad news out of the way.

    Disclosures necessary by the end of the month.


    'k (none / 0) (#24)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    Thinking it through (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    I think there is more to it than that. I think it signals another loan coming.

    wow. (none / 0) (#41)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    Question was asked of her rep (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    Wolfson? on a conference call this a.m., i.e., would Clintons loan money to her campaign.  He sd. he'd ask.  Sounds like it had already happened though.

    Obama website (none / 0) (#19)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:23:53 PM EST
    People are alway mentioning recent donations in their blog comments.  Small amounts, $30, $50, $100... someone trying to get everyone to donate $3.01, stuff like that.  

    For example (none / 0) (#81)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    Seems like alot (none / 0) (#20)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    Although according to this the Clinton's can afford it.

    Not the issue (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    The issue is money going forward.

    A winner can rise all they want. Heck, Hillary losing still can raise it. She will get it all back.

    The question is having money for the next two months.

    As I think it through, I think this presages ANTOHER loan, that's why she let it out today. She probably will give herself another loan in the next few days.


    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#40)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    She can afford to loan her campaign money, and as you said probably another one if it needs it. Regardless of getting it back or not it's clearly a luxury Obama would not have had with his low net worth. If he'd gotten in a similar situation it would have been lights out, game over.

    For some reason and I say this as an Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    supporter, his campaign consistently raises substantial amounts of money.

    They sell the usual giveaway stuff (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    which is brilliant -- $5 for buttons, more for t-shirts, etc.  All the buyers count as donors.:-)

    (The question has been raised somewhere I read, though, as to whether the dollars raised include deducting for sales tax owed -- and with different taxes in different states, what an accounting headache.)


    I don't believe (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    that the items are taxed since you are technically giving a contribution and receiving a political material.  

    I bought a couple of items a few months ago at a rally.  I had to fill out the standard political donation form.  

    The Obama website is really slick when it comes to donations.  Takes a few minutes.  When you're done they ask you if you want to email a message to friends.  If you say yes they ask if you would like your contacts imported from gmail or yahoo or outlook.

    Very efficient fund raising that requires very little work by the campaign.


    exactly (none / 0) (#74)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    I guess I wasn't making what I was trying to say clear. That link in my post shows the Clinton's with a net worth of $34.9 mil, so with her campaign not raising enough and in need of $ going forward they have the ability to loan the campaign $5 mil (and possibly more). Obama has a net worth of $1.3 mil (and most of that is prob tied up in his house), so he's been fortunate to have the ability to raise such big money campaign wise. Because if his campaign fund ever needed a $5 mil influx it couldn't come from his personal pocket. It would more likely be an Edwards style "thank you, good night."

    Maybe not. She is having a 3-day (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:55:20 PM EST
    drive right now.  (I just made my donation.:-)

    just ask McCain (none / 0) (#25)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    He took out a life insurance policy on himself so he could continue.  He was flat broke, now he is the nominee.
    Now that Super Tuesday is over there will be plenty of time to devote to fundraising.  I'm waiting for her to arrive here so I can shovel her some $$$.

    Have you figured out any way to contrib. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    w/o showing up on HuffPost's searchable by zipcode database by name, address, amount contributed?  I'm interested in contributing but probably not if that is the result.  

    I think this info is needed (none / 0) (#35)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    because of the caps on individual donations.  Got something to hide?

    Not really, except I used to be (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    a DDA and don't particularly like the people I prosecuted having easy access to my name and residential address.  (Yes, I know, it's all over the Internet and at the county recorder's office.)  

    Yeah, I can see your reasons (none / 0) (#58)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    one more tool for tracking people with.

    Many Contributers (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    Do not list their address.

    What is the dollar amount cutoff that they (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    show? Or how small does the donation need to be to stay off the list?

    I Think (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    Under $250 is off the list.

    How much are they spending a month? (none / 0) (#31)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    12-15 million?

    They had like 31 million (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    at the beginning of the year and raised another 13.5.

    So the burn rate was 44 last month I think.

    Unacceptable. Penn has to go.


    Penn (none / 0) (#38)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    has been paid $4.3 million so far.  Maybe he just needs a paycut.

    I'm Not An Expert on FEC Disclosure (none / 0) (#49)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    But I think that 31 million included 20 million for the general.

    Having said that, I still think Mark Penn should go.  The worst thing about her winning New Hampshire was saving his job.  


    I think you're on to it (none / 0) (#126)
    by Satya1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
    There is a flood of posts in the blogosphere on this but probably less than 5% trouble themselves to analyze the critical distinction between primary and GE funds.

    Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    So, he raised 20mm for the primary and 10mm for the ge?

    That means that (crap, I can't do the math) a great number of people maxed out on both sides, meaning they gave $4600 (2300 split between primary and ge)  Somebody please do the math.

    But, more importantly, that means he raised 20mm in the month that she raised 13mm.

    I'm not saying that's great, and certainly the fact that some of her staff have agreed to work without pay means they are leaning out, but the difference doesn't bother me as much now.

    Do we know how much she has on hand for the ge?


    Primary vs. GE for 4th quarter (none / 0) (#142)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
    The WaPo has broken down 4th quarter by primary, general and maximum contributions.

    Hillary exceeds Obama in all categories but the difference is the least when comparing the primary which is not good.  Also, the number for maximum contributions for Clinton is much higher which again is not a good sign.  

    Hiring Penn was a mistake and not firing him has compounded that mistake.  I don't think there is any doubt Obama has the best organization for fundraising and grassroot support.  The Clinton campaign has been way behind the curve there and it might be what ends up making the difference in the race.  


    Lots (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:32:23 PM EST
    Clinton spent $15 million in December going into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign spent at least $9 million in the last two weeks of January advertising in Super Tuesday states. Obama spent about $11 million in Super Tuesday advertising.

    Clinton raised $23.7 million in the last quarter of 2007 for the primary elections compared to Obama's $22 million. Both had about $18.5 million cash on hand for the primaries going into January. But Obama roared to a fundraising lead in January by collecting money at the rate of at least $1 million a day and attracting more than 170,000 new donors. link

    Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are going to be expensive. And she's maxed out with her donors.


    We'll see if she's maxed out (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:54 PM EST
    She's doing an internet drive now. . . .

    She is running (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:58:03 PM EST
    a 3 million in 3 days champaign. She has already raised over a million. So we'll see. Lot's of women will donate.

    Great! Glad to know I helped today (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    and having read nycvoter's post above, I'm going to give again tomorrow.  And maybe the third day, too.

    If we get a Clinton economy again, I'll get it all back and then some.


    LOL (none / 0) (#157)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:18:13 AM EST
    Please explain.

    Well... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    I imagine if the prospects were good she wouldn't be digging into her own millions, now would she?

    Loan (none / 0) (#42)
    by Joike on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    Clinton can try to lower expectations for the coming primaries and focus on the big ones in March, but Obama may have too much momentum by then.  Just ask Guiliani how well that strategy works.

    A lot of early donors may already be maxed out so she may not be able to go back to them for more money.

    She could loan herself more money if need be.  Huckabee did real well on Tuesday with a shoe-string budget, but he was one of three stretched candidates not one on one against a well-funded candidate.

    On a separate note, I love how the media is portraying McCain's "big" victory.  He won 9 of 21 contests on Tuesday meaning he LOST 12.  Going 9-12 can not only earn you a ridiculous contract in major league baseball, but it can only guarantee fawning coverage from a besotted media.

    The true energy is on our side with our two candidates.

    No she can't (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    She has to fight for the delegates now and now get beat too badly.

    money troubles plus two weeks of primary losses... (none / 0) (#46)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    ...equals trouble on March 4th.

    Can we agree that if she doesn't win both Ohio and Texas, she's in a lot of trouble, and if she loses both, even by a sliver, she should go ahead and concede?

    More than that (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    She HAS to win Ohio and Texas or she can quit right then.

    I STILL expect she will.

    And I believe she will have high profile fundaisers to show she can still raise money.

    This is really bad news.


    She needs to use her celebrities (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    Obama has gotten a lot out of his Oprah events - lists for fundraisers, etc.

    Clinton has her own celebrity supporters.  They may not be as big as Oprah, but an event here and there could be good politics and good money.  They need to get creative.

    The one good thing from this is that it's yet one more nail in Mark Penn's grave.  She is still in a position to win this thing DESPITE him and his advice, not because of it.  

    Okay, there's a second good thing about this kind of stuff, the failure of the Penn strategy has actually made her a better candidate, IMO.  She was brilliant in NH when she got out of her bubble and interracted with voters.  And she's continued to run a better, smarter campaign since then.  I think she probably got outspent a LOT leading up to Super Tuesday and Obama still couldn't finish her off.

    So the question is can she adapt to this new landscape quickly enough.  Can she find new sources of funding while she's competing in the February states?  


    Jack Nicholson, 50 cent, Perez Hilton, (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    Maya Angelou, and Eric Jong.  Quite a line up.  I'd show up.

    So would I (none / 0) (#84)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    Just for the drugs - between the illegal and prescription kind, I might not care who wins the GE.

    This does not bode well for Hillary. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    Maybe Bill can loan her the 5 from the 20 he's supposedly getting from Ron Burkle?

    He'd better just fork over the lump sum (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    if he wants to be the first man!

    Or your husband may apply! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    He got all chapped at me last (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    night when I told him that his girl was doing pretty well.  "Why does everybody call her my girl?"  Hmmmm hon, I wonder why?

    Tell him to send money fast. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    Now I think people who aren't in the upper income brackets will flock to HRC.  See, she's in debt just like me.  No wonder she is pushing for an interest rate freeze on mortgages.

    New Mexico (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    someone just said she won New Mexico...Is that true do you know?? MSNBC has always called it for Obama but CNN was waiting and said too close to call...

    She's up 210 votes with 98% in on their (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:50:57 PM EST
    website. Yay, New Mexico...I went to college there.

    this is an (none / 0) (#77)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    excellent article written by Digby, that I completely agree with concerning the media and their bias and what it will mean to Obama etc...

    This is interesting: (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    "I really think there's a Salieri-Mozart thing going on here," said Mr. Matthews. "Salieri was the court composer who did everything right. He was impressive. Along comes Mozart. And everybody couldn't get the music out of their heads. Hillary is really good at doing what she is supposed to do. She's impressive. He's inspirational. That's the difference. One's the court composer. And one is the genius. There's something he does. I don't know what. Oprah said it. It's not that he's black. It's that he's brilliant."

    I really pride myself on my knowledge of classical music.  But I'm pretty tone deaf to Obama.  


    If an idiot calls you brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    are you brilliant?

    Obama is SO not brilliant. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    He's a typical pol---smart enough, extremely driven, insufferably arrogant---but nothing special.

    Puhlease. Are you not born again? (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    You think most politicians are idiots? (none / 0) (#156)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:19 PM EST
    They're generally smart people. Obama doesn't stand out in that crowd.

    So Send Money hillaryclinton.com (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    So just send money, Obama has the above 100,000K crowd its proabably on their credit cards?

    I'm waiting for Talk Left to (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    post a direct pay link.  

    Not from me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    Ha. I wonder if J threw her (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    vote away by voting for Edwards.  

    Obama appears to (none / 0) (#96)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    be beating her to the punch. He already had paid staff in Nebraska, and Washington for weeks campaigning on his behalf. According to the Seattle Times Clinton just send paid staff today in Washington. There are no news that they are campaigning in Nebraska. Louisiana is a lost (due to about 50% of their democrats are Black),Nebraska is a lost, and Seattle does not look promising. I am worried about her campaign and believe she might not post a win until March in Texas and Ohio. I'm hoping for something good to happen for Hillary.

    never ever (none / 0) (#98)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    under estimate the Clintons in a finely played "chess game"....they are the best!!!

    I agree. (none / 0) (#101)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    One thing that the Obama camp should remember is what happened after Iowa in NH.  Obama has a very good fighting chance right now after Super Tuesday and that's it.  They need to keep their heads down and keep working.

    I do however think it will be very difficult for Hillary if she goes two months without a victory.  


    She can't make the mistake (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    of going Rudy track and "making a stand." She needs to participate in everything going forward.

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#137)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    She has reportedly sent paid staff to Washington state.  They are getting a slow start compared to Obama, but it looks like they are going to try to contest it, at least trying to get delegates out of it.

    Staff in Nebraska for a week. (none / 0) (#151)
    by phat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    Nebraska may not be as bad as it looks.



    Any news from Obama (none / 0) (#103)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    about whether he is still bringing in $ hand over fist in the wake of Super Tuesday?

    $3 MILLION ++++ (none / 0) (#141)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    Yikes (none / 0) (#105)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    yeah, not a good sign. How bad depends on whether it's indicative of a temporary shortfall from heavy spending going into Super Tuesday, or whether it reflects a longer term trend of difficulties from the fundraising end.

    I'm agnostic on that for now.

    even more suprising considering (none / 0) (#109)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    she has taken more money from Lobbyists this campaign than anyone else.

    Underdog status for Hillary. (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    Poker is a dangerous but sometimes very rewarding game.

    Always keep the other side guessing.  Do you have four aces? or a 10 and a 2.

    Some Clinton Staffers Reportedly Working for Free (none / 0) (#134)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    On the downside, this does seem to strengthen concerns about Clinton's money.

    On the upside, Mark Penn is finally being paid what he's worth!

    Clearly (none / 0) (#143)
    by replicant on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    This indicates that Obama is done. Over.


    $4,810,684 (none / 0) (#152)
    by SpindleCityDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    raised by Obama since polls closed.