$31 Million Campaign Debt? Never Mind

The LA Times sent out a "breaking news" e-mail saying "Clinton money shocker! Posts at 6 A.M. Eastern 3 AM Pacific."

It published its scoop here. Then it sent out another e-mail saying:

Due to a mathematical error, Hillary Clinton's loans to herself were counted twice in this morning's item on her campaign debt, which is $20 million not $31 million. We will be publishing a corrected item asap, but wanted to alert you as quickly as possible.

Never mind....

Here's the first, incorrect item, replete with the words "shocking" and "astronomical."

Headline, big and bold: Money shocker! Hillary Clinton's campaign debt soars to $31 million

No wonder Sen. Hillary Clinton was so late filing her required campaign financial reports Tuesday night. Her political team didn't want the shocking news in it to overshadow her lopsided thumping of Sen. Barack Obama in Kentucky.

But here's the morning after, pay-up time. Clinton's campaign debt has now soared to nearly $31 million, according to numbers crunched early this morning by The Times' campaign finance guru, Dan Morain.

She added another $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors this past month alone, pushing her total debt to vendors and herself to the new astronomical figure, about a 50% debt increase in one month.

Maybe Mr. Morain just needs more sleep.

< Overnight Open Thread | The Day After: Florida And Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Don't get me started on the LA TIMES... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Lupin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    Our MSM at work...

    A few years ago the LA TIMES had an article about Rio de Janeiro overlooking the Pacific.

    Fact-checking, like irony, is dead.

    It's not hard to believe (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpa1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    Every single newspaper and media outlet were accomplices to the lies told about what Bill Clinton said in So Carolina.  That was created and pumped up by Obama and team Obama.

    However, along the same line, I love this story, do you remember James Stewart the author of Bloodsport, a book about the awful Clintons.  Stewart is that guy who drags his words out to long.  Well not only is he hard to listen to but he is totally inept.  He made so many allegations about Bill and Hillary he made Richard Mellon Scaife look like an FOB.  But the pièce de résistance was after being caught time after time in wrong conclusions he had one final attack on Hillary and that was that when she filled out her application for the Whitewater loan she overstated the value of the property.  

    I don't remember the exact details however, I just found it thanks to Google.  Below is the report from the "SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
    AND RELATED MATTERS"  here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf -   see page 493 (I tried to use the link button but nothing came out so you might have to Google it if you want to see the actual text.)

    Finally, the Clintons' valuation of the Whitewater investment on their financial statement has been the subject of substantial discussion, particularly in Blood Sport. According to the book, Whitewater ``[c]uriously'' is not referred to by name in the assets
    portion of the document, but the Clintons listed two assets that may refer to Whitewater: $50,000 in accounts receivable and a partial interest in real estate valued at $50,000. 101 It therefore concluded that they valued their Whitewater investment at $100,000.

    The book then challenged the accuracy of this valuation. As noted earlier, in 1985, the unsold Whitewater lots had been conveyed to Chris Wade's Ozark Air. Wade still owed WWDC approximately
    $25,500 in that transaction, of which the Clintons were due half, or $12,750. In addition, the Clintons owned half of Whitewater's $60,000 in accounts receivable from before the sale to
    Wade; approximately $30,000. Thus, Blood Sport concludes that the Clintons' share of Whitewater was worth a total of approximately $42,750--less than half of the $100,000 value the Clintons
    supposedly assigned to the property.

    Apparently, Stewart reviewed only the first page of the two page financial statement.  The second page of the financial statement
    lists Whitewater as an asset valued at $100,000, 103 but it also lists the Clintons' portion of the Whitewater loan as a $70,000 liability.

    Thus, the net valuation of the Whitewater investment on the financial statement is actually $30,000--less than the $42,750 value that Blood Sport calculated.

    Consequently, it appears that the Clintons may actually have undervalued their Whitewater investment. 104 In any event, the whole issue is spurious because the bank already had complete information about both the value of the assets and the amount of the liabilities associated with Whitewater. They only needed a completed form for their loan files, and they were not looking to that form for information about a loan they had made which was collateralized by property they had inspected.

    Clinton raised $22M in April (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by wasabi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
    That seems pretty high for someone who is supposedly written off politically.

    samanthasmom (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    when did Huffpo ever bother about silly, uninspiring things like the truth?

     Arianna Huffingpo is an inspiration to all who want to get ahead without class, integrity or honesty. Other than that I'm sure she's a very fine person.

    What is happening at the LA Times? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Bob Boardman on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    There are definitely some political operatives in the news room at the LA Times...

    Another example of the sad state of journalism that this campaign has exposed.

    I doubt (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Claw on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    Political operatives had anything to do with it. You're right that this campaign has exposed the sad state of journalism--stupidity, laziness, and failure to check very basic facts.
    I think that in this case they already knew Clinton was "in debt" (never mind the fact that it really isn't debt in the way most Americans think of debt), and simply got the number wrong.  I mean 31mil sounds even better than 20mil.  It pops!  

    Don't they have new owners? (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    I thought they were one of those buy out bundles.

    Yup. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    The new owners kicked out some of the most experienced columnists, IIRC (cost-cutting, you know), and the LA Times has gone down in quality ever since.

    We'll see this more and more (none / 0) (#16)
    by akaEloise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST
    As print journalists try to compete with bloggers and rush things onto their paper's websites, and as the editing process is pared down for cost-cutting reasons.  Most mainstream journalists are used to working with an editor and going through several drafts, and dumb mistakes like this will often get caught by the original reporter if he or she has a few moments to think about what they're writing.   They have not had to learn the discipline that good bloggers have of being your own editor and fact-checker.

    CNN, another inept news organization (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton won by a landslide in Kentucky, but momentum is now firmly on Barack Obama's side.

    Totally surreal. Clinton netted both popular vote and delegate gains last night. She surged ahead in the popular vote. His ship is dead in the water, with a broken engine, and he is hoping for the breeze to push him over the finish line before Hillary catches him. But in CNN's eyes he gained momentum last night. Go figure. What are they going to say after Puerto Rico?

    "Puerto Rico (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    has an Obama Problem!"

    /Daily Kos


    So it's (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    Puerto Rico, not Obama that is the problem.

    Are these people from our planet?


    And Since Puerto Rico Has An Obama Problem (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    they shouldn't be considered in the nomination process (current meme) even though the Roolz give them that right.

    The NEW Democratic Party members (i.e. the Obama Party) seem to have a real aversion to letting people vote. Personally, I prefer the OLD Democratic Party that said "Count All The Votes."


    That reminds me... (none / 0) (#65)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    Puerto Rico is a caucus state. Will the Clinton campaign accept it as legitimate?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Regency on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    THey're a primary state now. They switched in March, I believe.

    Unless our flag... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    has 51 stars now and I missed the memo, Puerto Rico is not a state.

    This will be trouble for Obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by A little night musing on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    if this attitude gets attributed to him.

    Based on headline scanning in the local Spanish-language media, they view this race as far from over. They are looking forward to the PR primary. And most NYC Latinos are not PR, as far as I know (around here, they're mostly Dominican) but are watching that race nonetheless.


    That's some "dead ship"...! (3.00 / 0) (#24)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    "His ship is dead in the water, with a broken engine, and he is hoping for the breeze to push him over the finish line before Hillary catches him."

    With a majority of pledged delegates, superdelegates trending heavily in his direction (since NC and IN, a net gain of around 50 superdelegates IIRC), a double-digit lead in national polls over Hillary, large chunks of Hillary's key constituencies now also trending towards him...

    ... an objective observer can reasonably conclude that this ship is doing just fine.


    Got back up on this? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    large chunks of Hillary's key constituencies now also trending towards him...

    exactly which large chunks?


    Yes I do - it's these ones: (none / 0) (#68)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Women, non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, Easterners, and those with high-school diplomas or less. All now polling in Obama's favor except for non-Hispanic whites, which polls at 47% even.

    Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx


    Really? (none / 0) (#76)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    You're using one poll to disprove actual voting patterns and demographics?

    that explains why (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
    sen. clinton blew sen. obama away in KY; all those non-hispanic whites, with a hs diploma or less education, didn't get the word that they're now trending for obama! and the women too! geez, you'd think they'd have heard of this by yesterday.

    tell you what son, if you truly, truly believe this, i have shares for sale in the brooklyn bridge, below par, for you.

    sen. obama's biggest problem, his insurmountable hurdle, should he be the dem. nominee in the GE, is that when all is said and done, he'll still be sen. obama.

    no poll can change that painfully salient fact.


    More on Rezko--A New Bill to Curb Money in IL (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by SunnyLC on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST

    "Meanwhile, the Rezko Jury Still Deliberates...And A New Bill to Curb Money in IL Politics is Already Under Attack"

    With all this going on, it makes one wonder how Obama would be voting if he were still in the Illinois Legislature. Would he take a strong stance for the bill? Would he "bring people together" and push for the watered down version? And, in the end, regardless of whatever bill was adopted, would he IGNORE the intent and work deals to his advantage???

    Just asking...and reading "Scoop" (link provided in blog post)

    One thing that last night's results made nearly (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    100% certain is that when the final states and PR weigh in, Hillary will, by any kind of reasonable reckoning, have won the popular vote. (Assuming that she wins PR by something more than a trivial margin -- which would seem close to certain).

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    that's why Obama is constantly screaming for her to get out. He knows that there is now way he will win the popular vote. How much has he won OR by so far? 80,000? It'll probably go down further once the other rural county reports.

    Obama constantly screaming for her to get out? (none / 0) (#25)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    Could you provide a link where you think he has done this?

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    you haven't seen his surrogates like Leahy going on tv saying that "it's time to drop out".

    So what you mean to say is - (none / 0) (#37)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    - that Obama is not actually screaming for Hillary to get out. Thank you.

    And "surrogate" Patrick Leahy called for Clinton to drop out almost two months ago, at the end of March. Not exactly a current event, as you make it seem here.


    Thank you? (none / 0) (#83)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    You must be deaf, dumb and blind to not accept that simple truth.

    It's as clear as rain that Obama, and his band of uniters, have been pressuring Clinton to drop out.

    Did he actually say "Hey sweetie! Time to drop out!", no of course not -- this is politics in case you haven't noticed, and your petty reasoning doesn't change the facts.


    If you have a link - (none / 0) (#87)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    - that shows Obama pressuring Clinton to drop out, by all means provide it. He has done just the opposite whenever he voiced an opinion on the matter. You seem to admit already that no such thing exists anyway, so I take it for now that you concede this argument.

    Yes, many Democrats have suggested/urged/recommended (whatever you want to call it) that Clinton drop out of the race, out of concern that a drawn-out contest would harm the Democrats' chances in the fall. Obama has, after all, had a virtually insurmountable lead in pledged delegates for some time now.


    Why Is It Taking So Long To Get The Final (none / 0) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    tally in OR....or at least it seems like a long time :)

    According to the spreadsheet on (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Teresa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    Real Clear Politics, she's almost there even if you exclude Michigan. They had her within 53,000 based on their estimates of last night, but she did better than that. If she wins this without Michigan, that makes her argument that much stronger.

    Excluding Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    Just because the MSM and DNC are saying THEY aren't including the Michigan votes in the total, doesn't mean those votes don't exist. They do, and she has the most in popular votes.

    Who is this DNC anyway? (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    "Just because the MSM and DNC are saying THEY aren't including the Michigan votes in the total, doesn't mean those votes don't exist. They do, and she has the most in popular votes. "

    As far as I understand it, if the DNC says they don't count, they actually don't count, and at this point they don't. Whether they will be included will be decided by the rules committee on May 30/31, right?

    To concoct a lead in the popular vote for Clinton unfortunately it is necessary to disenfranchise approx. 230,000 MI voters... and we wouldn't want that, would we? Voices must be heard and all that.


    Nope, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    it's very likely you won't have to "concoct" anything about MI in order to give Hillary the popular vote after PR weighs in. Most likely, even excluding MI altogether, Hillary will still be winning the popular vote.

    Then, you'll have to find another rationalization, I'm afraid.


    Another rationalization for what? n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST

    another rationalization (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    for the claim that Hillary hasn't won the popular vote.

    Right now she hasn't - (none / 0) (#46)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM EST
    - so no rationalization is required in the first place.

    And 2. it is next to impossible to determine the popular vote in such a mixed process anyway, especially if it is close.

    And 3. the nominee is determined by delegates, not the popular vote.


    So we'll just (none / 0) (#85)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    see you at the Convention sweetie!

    Latest numbers on popular vote (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    from RealClearPolitics.com (without all Oregon votes yet):

    with FL (but not MI or caucuses):  Obama +146,773, +0.4%
    with FL (but not MI) and IA, NV, ME, WA (caucuses): Obama +256,995, +0.7%

    with FL and MI: Clinton +181,536, +0.5%
    with FL and MI, and with IA, NV, ME, WA (caucuses): Clinton +71,314, +0.2%

    Puerto Rico will send her numbers soaring; she could overtake him on all categories above.


    Yes, and - (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    - the numbers including MI include the fiction that there are zero Obama voters in MI. It was a spoiled election.

    It wasn't a spoiled election (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot. People still came out and voted and the votes were certified.

    You're accusing the MI secretary of state (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    of wrongdoing for certifying a "spoiled" election?

    It was certified, it was legal.

    The one who spoiled was not a Michigan voter but a Chicago machine pol who gamed it, who traded off Michigan for a win out of the gate in Iowa.  And the upside of the tradeoff worked well for him, getting the win that gave him crucial early momentum.

    The downside of the tradeoff now comes due for him -- he took himself off the ballot, so he doesn't get any votes.  Ya gotta pay to play, as they say in Chicago.  


    Dean says they do. (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    Delegates are the issue there (and FL), not the votes.

    Exactly. n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:23 PM EST

    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    "she's almost there even if you exclude Michigan"

    Looking at that spreadsheet, without Michigan she's anywhere between 200,000 and 550,000 behind in the popular vote... is that what you meant by "almost there"?

    Incidentally, amid all the excitement about the popular vote around here, it's worth noting that this process is still based on delegates. It's difficult if not impossible to extract meaningful data about the popular vote in a process that mixes primaries and caucuses, let alone the disqualified (spoiled) elections in FL and MI. Pretending there are no Obama voters in Michigan and excluding entire states because they voted in caucuses may make a Clinton supporter feel better when tallying up numbers in a spreadsheet and trying to eke out a lead in the popular vote, but the superdelegates who are supposed to be swayed by this argument are anything but.


    Your minor (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    problem is that there is no way of turning the pledged delegate count into anything remotely resembling the will of the people. We see case after case making that point obvious -- the most obvious one being that caucuses in general are obviously undemocratic and heavily stacked in the favor of activists over the larger electorate. Take away Obama's lead in pledged delegates based on caucuses, and he's actually behind in pledged delegates.

    So, as flawed as any reckoning of the popular vote may be, it is a far better representation of the will of the people. And certainly when voters have in the past been polled about what they considered the best metric to use in selecting the nominee, it has always been the popular vote that they choose.

    And the legitimacy of a nominee is in the eye of the people.


    A minor problem indeed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    "Your minor problem is that there is no way of turning the pledged delegate count into anything remotely resembling the will of the people."

    The delegate count was and is the method chosen and agreed to by all candidates at the outset to represent the will of the Democratic party and to decide the nominee.

    The only reason an attempt is made at this point to change the metric (from delegates to the popular vote) is because one campaign is behind and is desperately flailing to come up with a way to persuade the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to not go with the winner of the majority of pledged delegates. Which somehow isn't working - superdelegates are still trending towards Obama.

    I don't disagree with you that there are massive flaws in this whole process, that the DNC's punishment re. FL and MI was misguided to say the least (a 50% penalty, for example, would have been a better solution) and that the caucus process has potential problems (though some argue that it also has benefits), but (1) at this point we can't get the toothpaste back in the tube (though a re-vote would help IMO) and (2) it's not like this process is something new or came as some kind of surprise. Bill Clinton weathered this process (including caucuses) successfully twice before. If people want to change the process for the next time around, fine, but as for this contest the rules were known in advance, agreed to by all, and they will yield a nominee, namely the person to win the most delegates.


    Again, even independent (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    of the moral arguments respecting the will of the people, as represented by the popular vote, as being the true sign of legitimacy, take a look at the two polls I fished up in neighboring comments that demonstrate quite impressively that the vast majority of the people themselves have no truck with the notion that the pledged delegate count should be used to select the nominee.

    I should think that if you want a sense of legitimacy in a candidate, tying into the perceptions of the people themselves might be of foremost concern to you, not any set of basically arbitrary and often absurd and incoherent rules set out by bigwigs in the DNC.

    But since the bigshots' rules favor your guy, I guess you're more than happy to chuck the will of the people, aren't you?


    Hardly an issue since the leader - (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    - in pledged delegates and superdelegates just so happens to be the leader in the popular vote as well. No problem regarding legitimacy there.

    You can claim a moral argument regarding the will of the people when your argument no longer includes disenfranchising 240,000 MI voters and discarding 4 caucus states.


    I love signing off (none / 0) (#86)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    on all these little Minordomo threads :)

    Let me make it easy for you:

    The election process and its results -- wether based on PLEDGED delegates or actual VOTES -- acts as the INDICATOR for which ALL delegates and supers VOTE with at the CONVENTION!

    So your pledged delegates and the popular vote count will metrics that they will use to nominate with -- in other words, the best metric will be considered when the Party decides the Nominee so that they can 1. Act on the will of the People, and 2. Win in November.

    It's that simple.

    Get it now?


    Here's one poll (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    Fine, but - (none / 0) (#43)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    - a bit late for this time around.

    OK, so from (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    your point of view, damn the people and what they think. It's the RULZ that counts.

    Great Democrat and democrat you got there inside your own skin, buddy.


    Of course the rules count - (none / 0) (#51)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    - or do you just want to make up new ones? Who's going to make them up? How will we decide the nominee? Do you want to dictate to the superdelegates that they MUST go with Hillary if she happens to get a lead in the popular vote? How would that be accomplished?

    Any thoughts?


    Actually, (none / 0) (#49)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    given your insistence on adherence to DNC "rules", no matter how arbitrary or incoherent or just plain irrational, maybe I misunderstood your intention.

    Maybe you think we're selecting the Hall Monitor in Chief?

    In which case, sure, Obama wins.


    Nope, these are the rules - (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    - put in place to select the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

    If you find them so arbitrary and incoherent and just plain irrational, what did you do about having them changed before your preferred candidate fell behind?


    THAT is your answer? Yikes. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    That it's too late, with half a year to go, to fix an internal idiocy in the Democratic party.  

    That it's better to stick to the roolz (but then, which ones?  the ones at the start, stripping states of only half their delegates, or the ones pushed through by the Obamans on the committee to take away all delegates?) in the party, in the primary, no matter whether the roolz may mean losing the general election and the presidency.  

    Sorry, but that reminds me so much of student council freeks in high school who clung to their rules even when it meant losing the support of students who suffered from the stoopid roolz.


    And here's another such poll (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    putting the pledged delegate count as preferred by very few people as a means of selecting the nominee.

    The actual people just don't seem to agree with you or our ever idiot pundits that the popular vote is just, you know, so irrelevant.


    Again, fine, but - (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    - a bit late for this time around. It's hardly possible to simply throw the process away and come up with another one at this point.

    I also think it would be great if the nominee would be decided by a more ideal representation of the popular vote, which is how you'd find me responding to that poll as well.

    But given where we are in this process at this time, the simple fact of the matter is that the popular vote is only of limited relevance, namely in how the superdelegates take it on board. And (1) right now they're not, they're still trending towards Obama, presumably because they think he is more electable (what other reason would they have?), and (2) they don't fall for semi-dishonest arguments like "let all the voices be heard" mixed with "let's disenfranchise 240,000 MI voters" and "let's discard 4 caucus states".

    As for how Puerto Rico's impact on the popular vote will be seen by superdelegates, they just might have a look at how Puerto Rico's electoral votes fit into the big picture.


    So...campaign debt of $20 Million (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Elise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    is no big deal to you?

    I think it's pretty pathetic that Clinton expects people to believe she can run a country when she can't even manage her campaign without running it up into debt - and I'm hardly the only person who points that out...and I'm guessing it would be a huge gift for Republicans in the fall were she ever to become the nominee. I can just hear the ads now, in fact.

    Also pathetic is that Clinton expects all those low-income supporters of hers to pay this debt off for her - and for small-businesses that she is in debt to to just suck it up and hold onto the debt for her while the economy swirls further down the toilet.

    What leadership.

    $33 million....$31 million...$20 million - it's more than her voters will make in a lifetime. I doubt they care about the specifics.

    Sad to see Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    using the "We must be right because we have more money!" frame. The Republicans had that POV cornered for so long. This election has been very eye-opening.

    No, I think the frame is... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by NvlAv8r on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    If you run your campaign deeply in debt, what does it say about your management skills.  Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is political fodder for the Right.

    LOL, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    that's exactly what I was saying--that's the Right's traditional argument. They've made it for years regarding donations to the RNC and various campaigns-- "If people like [insert Dem here] so much, why do I have more money?" I just hate to see Dems falling into that trap.

    You appear to be unable (none / 0) (#61)
    by Elise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    to read my words.

    This isn't about who has more money. This is about who is better able to manage the money.

    What part of that is tough to comprehend? Unless you're deliberately being obtuse.


    Right back at you. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    You appear to be unable to comprehend that I'm saying I disagree with you that he's managing his money better. He's raised more money and outspent her in every race, yet they're still neck and neck for delegates and she's ahead on popular votes. She's managing her money more effectively, spending less to win more votes.

    Obama supporters point to his fundraising numbers as a sign that people believe in him more, which is the way I read your initial comment. I think his numbers are a sign that the people who believe in him have more money to donate. Not a bad thing, but not a sign that Senator Clinton's supporters are less numerous or less committed.


    The one in debt - (none / 0) (#70)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    - is not the one managing money more effectively.

    In YOUR point of view. (none / 0) (#72)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    Most Americans carry at least some debt, are we all failures at budgeting? Sometimes we carry debt, like student loans and mortgages, to accomplish our dreams and win a better life for our children. This is another classist argument, IMO, blaming people who have less money for just not managing correctly. Senator Clinton lending her campaign money, because she believes in what she's doing. And I'm donating as much as I can, because so do I.

    No, being in debt is not a failure itself - (none / 0) (#84)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    - but the campaign that is in debt (and that went from tremendous advantages to trailing in every metric) is not the one that is managed more efficiently.

    You make good points re. student loans, mortgages etc., but they're somewhat beside the point in this context. Clinton didn't get into debt as a wise strategy where it made more sense that you take into account what you're getting now vs. interest rates, as is the case with student loans and mortgages, no - she got into debt out of desperation.

    "This is another classist argument, IMO, blaming people who have less money for just not managing correctly"

    1. Surely you don't mean to call the Clintons people who have "less money"...

    2. The Clinton campaign started with a hefty warchest and a number of other advantages. The fact that her campaign is now in debt and that she is trailing in delegates has nothing to do with the Clintons having "less money" (they were able to loan Hillary's campaign over 11 million dollars, after all), but with a poorly run campaign.

    "And I'm donating as much as I can, because so do I."

    I respect that, and I appreciate that. Good for you.


    Obama's Rich Donors (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    Minordomo, maybe you read this week that Warren Buffet -- betraying his longtime friendship with the Clintons -- viciously endorsed Obama?  When you have, literally, the richest man in the world on your side, of course you don't have money problems.  I'm not even mentioning all the wealthy, latte-sipping elites who are desperate to stifle Clinton's populist message.

    When this primary process is over, I'm sure we'll find out the Obama campaign is guilty of widespread fraud and corruption, probably fixing the books and stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from Clinton's.


    I've been to this rodeo (none / 0) (#96)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    a time or ten thousand since January, sorry I ran out of patience. Also, I do have to work.

    "she got into debt out of desperation." YOUR opinion, with which I disagree. Like I said, this is kind of pointless, as the rest of your argument is similarly based on your interpretation of the facts at hand, and I disagree. And completely unresponsive to my initial point, talking to someone else, that a campaign having more money does not make that candidate more qualified to be president. Otherwise, the R's should always win.


    Fact check (none / 0) (#75)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    "they're still neck and neck for delegates"

    Fact 1: Obama now has the majority of pledged delegates, and a lead in pledged delegates that is no longer just virtually insurmountable, but actually insurmountable.

    Fact 2: Obama is in the lead in superdelegates, and the trend/momentum here is also in his favor.

    "and she's ahead on popular votes"

    It's possible to reach such conclusions in a spreadsheet by creatively discarding hundreds of thousands of voters (240,000 MI voters, 4 caucus states), which is hardly in the spirit professed by the Clinton campaign of having every voice be heard.

    Barring such adventurous approaches, Obama actually has the lead in the popular vote, somewhere between 150,000 and 550,000 votes.


    Nope (none / 0) (#77)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    Nice talking points, but no sale. This is pointless, but TY for playing.

    Thank you - (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    - for your non-existent comeback.

    Let me know if you can come up with any facts to dispute what I said.


    Yay! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    Another Minordomo Threadend!

    Debt you say? How can she run the country if her campaign is in "debt"?

    How pathetic.

    See how I use the word "debt" in quotes? Because that's what it is, a non-issue.

    The real issue would be if she went BANKRUPT! Get it now? You see there a HUGE distinction between 'debt' and not being able to pay that debt.

    Actually, what we call this in ACCOUNTING is "TEMPORARY CASHFLOW PROBLEM!"

    Temp. Cash Flow Probs. are very common with successful and SOLVENT businesses.

    Get it now?


    Except that isn't what I said. (3.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Elise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    What I said was that one candidate seems to be able to manage a campaign. The other doesn't. One candidate seems to think it's a-okay to ask low-income voters to pay for that debt...one doesn't owe a debt.

    He isn't "better" because he has more money. He's better because he managed his campaign more effectively and didn't make mistakes that he then expects poor people to pay for.

    This isn't about who HAS more money...it's about who can manage money better and what that means for the election - and also for the people who are owed...and for those who will be paying off that debt.


    Disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    So, Obama isn't getting money from poor people? That contrasts quite a bit with what his campaign says. And he's not in debt because he's raised more money, not because he budgeted better.

    Plus she's getting more out of every dollar spent. Obama spent $11 million in PA to lose by ten points, outspent Clinton 2-to-1 to lose WV by 41 points. Who's managing their money more wisely? For me, I'd want to see big wins with that kind of spending.

    Appreciate your concern, but I'm one of the lower-income people who will be paying off her campaign debt, and I consider it money well invested in a candidate and a cause I believe in. Very condescending to think that you know better than Senator Clinton's donors how their money should be invested.


    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    "And he's not in debt because he's raised more money, not because he budgeted better."

    It's both, of course. And raising more money, especially from private citizens (including poor people, as you noted) to such an astonishing degree, is also a sign of an excellent campaign.

    And keep in mind that Clinton's campaign isn't exactly known for wise fiscal management, even going back to her Senate re-election.

    "Obama spent $11 million in PA to lose by ten points, outspent Clinton 2-to-1 to lose WV by 41 points. Who's managing their money more wisely? For me, I'd want to see big wins with that kind of spending."

    That would make sense if you're assuming they're starting from the same position, but both PA and WV were very strong demographically for Clinton. You can call it "getting more out of every dollar spent", though of course she had a built-in advantage in the demographics that was there for the taking.

    It's hard to deny that Obama has built up a very effective and impressive organization across the country, and that this will be useful in the general election as well. One thing to keep in mind is the large number of small donations, meaning that these are not maxed-out donors going into the general election. Someone who gave $50 in February could give $50 again in September.

    "I'm one of the lower-income people who will be paying off her campaign debt, and I consider it money well invested in a candidate and a cause I believe in."

    Good for you.


    Argh, (none / 0) (#97)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    "raising more money... is also a sign of an excellent campaign" is exactly the mindset I was arguing against. And if his campaign organization is so useful, how come he outspends her two and three and five to one and still loses?

    Oh - he's getting money from everyone... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Elise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    and he'll get more of my money (which I don't have a lot of) because he is spending it well.

    Good to know you don't have a problem with your money going straight into the Clinton bank account. I'm sure the other $94 million they've got in there is a little lonely.

    And just fyi...every dime Obama has spent has been spent smartly. He has been working towards laying groundwork for the general election throughout this entire campaign...since before Iowans caucused. Every penny of my donations has been spent to help Obama win the nomination and the general election. It doesn't get any better than that.


    I'm glad you feel good about (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    your donations and how they've been used. Good luck with your groundwork there.

    My oh my... (none / 0) (#89)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    Smart use of money? Clinton is trying to "rip off low-income voters to pay off her 'debt'"?

    How pathetic.

    If Obama had to actually PAY for all the free lovey-dubbly MSM coverage he's received -- he would not only be in debt, but filing for Chapter 11 right now :)


    This is quite disingenuous (none / 0) (#92)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Campaigns go into debt all the time. Both winning and losing candidates often have to spend a great deal of time retiring debt after an election. Good for Obama for raising so much money (and having wealthier supporeters to help him do it) but to say being in debt is de facto a sign of mismanagement simply indicates that you have no ideas what you're talking about.

    Comments by (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:06:10 AM EST
    new poster with personal insults to Barack Obama deleted. That commenter is banned.

    Helping Clinton (none / 0) (#4)
    by JohnRove on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    Most of the 20 million is iether money owed to Mark Penn or money that the Clintons owe themselves, as far as helping her out, I agree that someone should probably try to figure out a way to pay her small vendor, but the Clintons and Penn can probably afford to take a loss..  

    Replying to deleted comment (none / 0) (#5)
    by JohnRove on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
    I was replying to the deleted comment where the commentor in a somewhat impolite way was arguing that Obama should help Clinton with her campaign debts.

    Didn't catch the comment - (none / 0) (#33)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:28:37 AM EST
    - but that commenter should be made aware that it would be illegal for Obama to simply pay Clinton's debts from the contributions made to Obama.

    This was discussed a couple of weeks ago, when it was suggested that one thing they could do is for Obama to set up a fund of some kind where he would encourage his supporters to contribute to helping Clinton pay off her debt. How successful that would be is another question.

    Clinton is still attracting donations, though, so she could perhaps use these to pay off the debts down the line.


    Obama the survivor (none / 0) (#91)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    who would graciously pay off Clinton's campaign 'debt' was last weeks Internet Meme, as part of the "you lost sweetie, time to go away" Campaign.

    That didn't work, and believe me, Clinton doesn't need to stoop that low.

    Afterall wasn't it ObamaCamp that demanded that the Clintons release their Tax Records? Which btw was totally insulting, but it did prove that they are not hard up for cash.

    I'm actually surprised how you don't harp on her for lending her campaign money from her on pocket! To me that shows she has a personal commitment and is willing to put "her money were her mouth is", but I'm sure some will consider that "cheating".



    How long do you think it will (none / 0) (#3)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    take HuffPo to correct its headline?  I couldn't help it.  I just wanted to see what the headline would say this morning.  I didn't look at anything else.

    When they think the harm is moved from (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    Hillary to them. Until then, they want as many as possible to see it.

    Watch how long it takes before people/commenters around the net stop saying the debt is $31M. Some will hold on so tight, they'll never believe it was an error.


    I Don't Believe HuffPo Cares If They Get Any (none / 0) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    headlines correct.  They seem to have just one goal there...tear down Hillary at all cost.  I am surprised Dowd doesn't blog there...she is a piece
    of work...talk about bitter.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Y Knot on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    That journalism in this country is in sad shape, but a mistake like this doesn't necessarily the work of "political operatives."  

    More likely it's just some moron who doesn't know how to work a calculator.

    At least they managed to correct their mistake, which is more than I can say for some news organizations out there.

    the problem is (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Kathy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    they attack every story from the baseline that Clinton is bad.  It clouds their vision on everything they write.  How can you report the news when you assume you already know the story?  They have it written in their heads before they even sit down, and no one bothers to check them until it's in print.

    The Mark Penn debt will be zeroed out.  That's what political operatives do.  He won't see that money as anything but a write-off on his taxes. The small vendors will get paid.  They always do.

    Meanwhile, Clinton has 90mm in her ge warchest.  She can use that money to pay off debt, right?  Even if she can't, as I have said many times before, Bill can go on a week-long speaking tour and make up that money and then some just by opening his mouth.

    These stories about Clinton being in debt haven't had much impact, other than to make folks contribute more.  If these reporters were doing their job, the story would be about the fact that Obama has all the money in the world and Clinton is in debt, yet she still keeps winning big races.


    She can use that money (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by angie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    to pay off debt if (1) she makes it to the GE, obviously (which I am sure she will) or (2) if she doesn't make it to the GE, she then has to transfer her war chest to her future NY Senate campaign while also transferring her debt to her future NY Senate campaign. Yeah, I know that second option kind of looks like money laundering, but it is legal & all pols do it.

    Clinton has how much? (none / 0) (#78)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    "90mm in her ge warchest"



    *yawn* (none / 0) (#93)
    by TheViking on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    If you don't know that Minordomo, then why are you commenting on topics you know nothing about?


    There you go! Happy reading!