Hillary, Obama and the Campaign Debt Factor

Thomas Edsall at Huffpo writes that the Obama campaign may agree to pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt of $10 plus million, plus her campaign expenses of $10 plus million, if she bows out gracefully now.

George Stephanapoulous says:

We know that Senator Clinton loaned herself a little more than $11 million. Going into April, the campaign finance reports show the campaign was carrying a debt of $10 million to $15 million. My sources are now telling that that number is far higher. The campaign debt is far higher than ten million dollars. It could be double that, maybe even more. And the lack of money and load of that debt could be driving the decisions inside the Clinton camp in coming days.

What do you think? Will there be an offer of debt repayment and if so, is Hillary likely to take it?

< Coca is Not Cocaine; Let the Farmers Be | The Delegate Math; Clinton Nixing MI Proposal? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, it would clear the way for (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    for Obama to proclaim himself the winner, since the press and his campaign are trumpeting May 20 as The Date.  Smells bad, though.  I would prefer Clinton not do this, but, then again, it isn't my money.

    I Suspect That's Why Obama Is Pushing This (none / 0) (#168)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    I'll bet you anything this comes from his campaign.

    For a guy who has this sown up, he sure is doing an awful lot to drive her from the race.


    He's trying to pay her off (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by LibOne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    just like the SuperDelegates.

    darn, you beat me too it (4.20 / 5) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    I was going to say the same. This is exactly right, he bought most of his SD's (part of his hacking the system to win), and now is offering to buy Clinton off.

    In my opinion, this would be political suicide for Clinton. From that point on, anytime she would make the case for something, or try to run again (for senate or for pres.), the issue of being bought off to stop running and thus stop trying to help americans would come up.

    She definitely should not accept the bribe. In fact, I'd make this a campaign issue if it could be verified. Just think of the stump speeches: Well, he bought off a number of SD's, seems to have bought off members of the DNC, now he's trying to buy me out of this race. Well, I'm not for sale.


    Excellent retort (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST

    and you bought it .. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by v2r1 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    It's not a bribe but an attempt to end the race if thats all she is in it for. If she still believes that she can win the race she has every right to stay and owes it to her supporters to continue.

    What's interesting with this is .. inspite of righteous indignation I see in here/kos/mydd about the Media it takes just a silly story by one reporter suggesting what is just one possibility for folks to be up in arms. It still shows how little the media the needs to do to manufacture consent... Pavlovian conditioning  


    Most Excellent !!!! (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cate on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    As was said earlier... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    its not your money, so its very easy to be this critical.  

    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#179)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    not only should she not accept it, she will not accept it.  The msm is rewriting the entire scenario that Obama "closed the gap" in IN (when it was the other way around) and Hillary "had to win NC" (when she was never expected to) in order to start their "Hillary should drop out" shrieking again. Yet, FL & MI remains unresolved and Obama still doesn't have the 2209 delegates needed to be the nominee.  The fact is, after she turned IN around, they are scared to death she might win OR -- I for one, am going to try to help her do that.  Furthermore, I'm not watching the news at all. I'll rely on the good people here to keep me updated.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#90)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    They used to tell me, "Money talkes and bu!!$hit walks."

    i don't like it (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    if he was or is willing to do that, he should keep that very private and only discuss it in passing when questioned "post good deed".  

    It is rather ugly to let that slip out in the press as it sounds like he is using this to twist her arm a bit into making a statement.

    And that he is... (none / 0) (#183)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    trying to "buy" her TO SHUT HER UP once and for all, but most important to him is that by "offering" to pay her debt, HE IS HUMILIATING HER IN PUBLIC....ONCE AGAIN. THIS WOULD BE THE LAST BLOW TO (in his own words) "KNOCK HER OUT".

    jeez... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    I can't blame her for trying to retire that debt. However, if such a deal is in the works, it should have been done discreetly. If the Obama campaign or the DNC has leaked this then it's just one more effort to rub salt in her wounds.

    I'm hating the Obama campaign and the DNC more by the minute.

    How do we know who leaked? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by zzyzx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    It could be speculation; that's how that article read.  For that matter, someone in the Clinton camp could be floating a trial balloon to the Obama group.

    To determine (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    who leaked information, you have to ask yourself, who does it help?

    Does it help Hillary for people to think she can't fundraise?

    No, it helps Obama.

    And BTW, I may need to remind folks that McCain had a horrible time in fundraising....


    who says it leaked? (none / 0) (#31)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    this happens all the time, Hillary's debt is known by all.

    eventually a reporter would ask if they were willing to pay, and a staffer somewhere said yes they would probably do it if he ended the primaries faster.

    you can't really keep it secret the public finds out eventually so why would the Obama campaign lie if they really are willing to do it?


    umm... (none / 0) (#44)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Does it help Hillary for people to think she can't fundraise?
    Umm... pretty sure that we already know that she is struggling with money.

    Do you really think that we only know about this because the Obama campaign may pay off her debts?


    Wolffson for one. (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimotto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    He's the one who talked about the 6.5 million dollar personal loan.  If she's 25 million in the hole, including 11 million out of her pocket, seems like paying off her debt is helping her quite a bit.

    Wolfson was asked ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    on MSNBC earlier about the state of her campaign finances after alluding it (the campaign) was in trouble. He dismissed the "rumor" saying that although the campaign had not raised as much as BO, it had raised more than enough to fund the rest of the campaign's events leading to the nomination. In the meantime, there is quite a dynamic contribution process at hillaryclinton.com , we the Hillary stalwarts will not let her down, it's been done before, it will continue to be done, until she says so.

    Wolfson was asked ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    on MSNBC earlier about the state of her campaign finances after alluding it (the campaign) was in trouble. He dismissed the "rumor" saying that although the campaign had not raised as much as BO, it had raised more than enough to fund the rest of the campaign's events leading to the nomination. In the meantime, there is quite a dynamic contribution process at hillaryclinton.com , we the Hillary stalwarts will not let her down, it's been done before, it will continue to be done, until she says so.

    I Think It Would Put obama's Camp In A Bad (none / 0) (#175)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    light...or at least it should, but who knows with the way they spin everything to death.  It makes him look weak and trying to buy his way into one more office.

    really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    To humiliate herself?

    Yesterday, the media was suggesting (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    that Clinton would go to Obama and negotiate a place on the ticket with the pay-off of her debt as the bait to get her to drop the race.

    This is all just media creating a web of speculation scenarios to fill in all those many hours they need to talk.


    Combo of A Slow News Day & obama Still (none / 0) (#176)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    getting free passes and being the darling of the media.

    No Veep For You... (none / 0) (#181)
    by AlladinsLamp on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    After paying off her debts to drive her from the campaign, Hillary could have no complaint about not being offered the VP slot.

    Perhaps the leak is like a wolf in sheep's clothin (none / 0) (#207)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    I.e., a so-called leak of a fable, just like the leak on the even of the PA primary to the effect that there were 50 SDs waiting in the wings to endorse Obama.

    This is done to humiliate her (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    do you not get it?  

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    And voters will hear that and think "I don't want to back a loser", so they won't vote for her.

    Bernstein the other pig... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    (not sexist just pig in general, TM warning) kept talking about her how it's all about the Hillary psychology now.  His bit theory of how she loses it when she fails.  C'mon, this is what this is, they are trying to humiliate her so that she loses her cool and momentum.  

    And don't forget bully (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    they're also trying to bully her.  After all, media isn't about reporting facts, it's about helping Obama...until he wins the nom, then it's about helping McCain.

    Would you want to (none / 0) (#89)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    give money to a candidate who sure doesn't look like there is a chance at all to win?

    Money = votes and support.


    I just did. (none / 0) (#187)
    by wasabi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    It's (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    on par with the Lake County BS.

    Yeah, they want our vote.  Scumbags.


    So right (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by stefystef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    using money to insult her and buy the White House.

    Obama is no good.


    And To Dry Up Her Donations (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    In fact, I suspect that's what all of this is about - first the Gary mayor holds the vote, then the declaration of Mission Accomplished, and now the money.

    Yes, and it's only part of what the media (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    is trying to get started. Yesterday, TWICE I saw Andrea Mitchell trying to get the subject of Bill Clinton's financial exposures (including the Foundation and the Library) going again since her loans to the campaign have now dipped into their "joint" funds. I was surprised the people around her didn't bite, except that it's outside the arena of telling her to quit for the sake of the party.

    Her hubby needs to explain to her how (none / 0) (#163)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    you can take your millions and make more millions. She seems to have no idea about investments. She is stuck on the library stuff and his speaking fees. I have heard her talk about it several times, too. Guess she has missed how all former presidents make a bundle in speaking fees.

    More Like Andrea Needs To Retire And After (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    all of Greenspan's bad advice on America, he would not be my go-to guy for investment advice.

    I don't like it. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    I'm not a politician or a strategist, but something tells me that Hillary can pay off her debts through fundraising without going to Senator Obama.  I also see Obama folks complaining about their money going to Hillary, etc.  And selfishly, I want no favors from Senator Obama's campaign.

    interesting (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    (Almost) all of us who posted initially had the same thought: this is a crappy thing to leak. Obviously the aim is to humiliate her.

    This is just getting uglier and uglier. Someone needs to explain to Obama the concept of graceful winning. I'm sure there's room for it in the "new politics." All I've seen for the past two days are knives sticking out of Hillary's back.

    Obama is just tired of campaining (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    He's never had to work this hard on getting elected.

    He wants what he wants?

    Please get over yourself already. You're not the prez and you haven't been nominated.


    neither has obama! (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    was your post snark? i hope so! if not then then, get over yourself. thanks so much!

    Aw, the real Obama is coming out (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    And he is tired and bored of campaigning. It is hard work. Remember who said that first.

    That is very insulting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BigB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    If the Obama campaign thinks this way. They think Hillary is staying in this race because of that?

    Mmm looking at the full quote (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    Everything we're hearing is that a deal over Florida and Michigan could be cut in the next few days. The Obama campaign apparently realizes they have plenty of room to give. The hurdle isn't Clinton and Obama anymore, though; it is folks in the DNC who believe those two recalcitrant states still need to be punished in some form, so states realize there are consequences to doing this in 2012. The latest offer from Michigan is a 69-59 split, with supers going however they want. The two state parties don't want to be halved, meaning their delegate votes become .5, a la Democrats Abroad. But it's clear to us that DNC types want some flesh on this issue. Many hate the idea of Florida and Michigan getting full delegations simply because now it appears their delegations won't make a difference in the process.

    If the DNC needs their pound of flesh then strip the supers. It's been suggested before and it seems like this way everyone gets a little of what they want. There is a punishment, but it doesn't affect the voters.

    Time already served (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    is punishment enough.  I don't see many states signing up for the treatment FL and MI got this year.

    Of course the right solution is regional primaries with rotated or randomly determined schedules.


    And do the same with FL (none / 0) (#24)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    Strip supers, seat pledged.

    Either punish all 5 rule violaters (none / 0) (#206)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    or none.  Not fair to single out FL & Mich -- what about South Carolina & others who moved up the dates of their primaries in violation of the precious rules?  

    I'm so tired of half-truths from the media -- I'm not sure at this point if the media is shilling for Obama or just plain ignorant.

    A relative of mine has a pithy statement to describe another relative who was fond of leaving out inconvenient truths in an attempt to gain the psychological upper hand:  "__ has no respect for the truth."  I believe this is where we are today with the so-called 4th estate.  


    Steph makes me ill. I never watch him. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    Other than that, until I hear it from Hillary, I'm telling her to keep on keeping on.

    If they meet and solve the problem with MI, FL to the  satisfaction of and fairness of her supporters, we can get beyond the math.

    Untill then she has nothing to lose except votes if she drops out. And she needs to rack up popular votes. She shouldn't pull and Obama like in the 2 states everyone is fighting over.

    People expect to vote for her. let them.

    I fear that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    is going to be the nominee, and I fear his nomination will result in yet another defeat for the Democratic Party in 2008.  Both of those opinions are my honest assessment today.  Perhaps we have a political year where we could elect McGovern,  Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry.  Maybe the forces of disgust are adequate to lift any boat, but all things being equal to other years, I think McCain will be president.

    Grant those presumptions, I think Hillary should start to prepare for 2012, take Obama's money, and get out of Dodge.  I say that as a person who believes Hillary's defeat is a national tragedy.

    For Sale? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    BO is out to stop Hillary from showing that his support from Whites has dropped significantly.  It's another pr from BO.  HRC can get 30 million from donations.  I think that if people see her as losing the nomination, some donors will back away, but small donations pile up fast.  It's keeping the campaign flush with money that's a bit of a problem.

    I don't believe in his small donors claim. (none / 0) (#75)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    Not at his burn rate. He's got some bundling thing going on with Oprah money IMO.

    He has to have a huge trough somewhere. Ask yourself, how can a virtual unknown, sell enough of himself as a unity/hope butterfly in the sky to hardcore donors? Doesn't pass the smell test.


    Read this (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM EST
      this and decide where the $$ comes from for yourself...

    Not Surprised...Read About obama's Money (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    bundlers before when he purged the rolls of wanna delegates and only left them on, along with their spouses/girlfriends.  He got called on it and all of a sudden the wannabe delegates were reinstated

    I have no facts to refute your (none / 0) (#86)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    speculation but I would not be surprised if he did not get a donation from almost every AA in the country.  They have to be excited about this candidacy.  College students may be donating small amounts as well.

    think about this. his big donors may have (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    told(i repeat told/ordered so to speak) obama to shut it down NOW if he wanted more money. they would give extra to get hillary out of the way. that is the source of the money and just general meaness(is there anything else with these folks) that led to this "i've got a secret" announcement.

    Democratic Campaign Finance Reform (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    The amounts of money raised and spent by both campaigns in this primary are obscene.  Even if we can't get meaningful campaign finance reform at the national level, could they at least get it incorporated into the DNC rules?

    A-greed!! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    I can think of better ways to spend $$.

    Did the (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    Obama campaign overdose on stupid pills today? First, the MI and FL issue and now this? They are doing everything they can to make sure that Hillary supporters don't vote for Obama.

    If they do this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    then the purge will be complete.  After all, they don't need the "old" Democrats.

    i say let them do stupid! (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    the faster the world sees just what type of president he would make, the better.

    I highly doubt she will ask (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ajain on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    These are simply speculations and frankly insulting ones.

    I dont think she will ask for help with the money, or ask for the VP slot. I find either scenarios hard to believe.

    the news this morning (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    is saying exactly this, Clinton could retire her own debt if she needs to ... so far there is nothing coming from the CLinton camp to suggest she is stopping or worried, one report said she might loan her campaign money again if she needed to...I don't know if it is bravada but Wolfson just told Andrea Mitchell they still see a way to the nomination.  Bill Clinton is telling peopin WV not to listen to the media and to come out and vote for Hillary.  He says she will win popular vote when the seat MI and FL.

    Stop the Insanity! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by SpinDoctor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    Please people, take a step back and actually read the linked articles.  No where does it say the idea of repaying the Clinton debts were "leaked" by either campaign.  No where do the articles indicate that any campaign has even floated the notion.  It is nothing more than reporters speculating on what could happen.

    This blind partisanship and desire to villify our own needs to end.  Reserve your hostility for those that deserve it.  There is nothing in Jeralyn's post or the articles that she linked that in anyway suggests that Obama, his campaign or his supporters are trying  to do anything at all.  Perspective please.

    Calling (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
    people insane will not help you make a point.

    Where do reporters get their info?  Oh yes, they just dream it up all the time.  

    I'll have to admit that that credibility of the media is sorely hurting, but your credibility is as well.

    You obviously do not understand the level of betrayal many feel.


    He does deserve it n/t (none / 0) (#204)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    Undermining Axelrod trick (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    It is strictly to dry up her donors and make them worried when they know they are heading into Clinton Country voter bases in WV and KY.

    10 million even 30 million is just a book away from either Clinton.  They could likely sign book deals right now and get enough to finance the whole campaign for the mere 28 days left.

    They wouldn't even have to have donor support.

    She won't take a dime from Obama, and that I would bet on big time.

    He is increasingly annoying every single damn day.

    Does anyone seriously think Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    will have a problem paying off her own debt?  A book deal and a speaking schedule will knock it out in pretty short order, so if I were her, I would just ignore Obama and keep fighting the good fight.

    would you really (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    give up $20 million of your own money, when the common practice is for the winner to pay it?

    how dumb would that be


    If it's so common, why haven't (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    I heard the magnanimous and beneficent Senator Obama offering to pay off the debts of all of the "losing" Democratic candidates?  You'd think he would have helped out Dodd and Richardson, at least, who endorsed him for heaven's sake - they've been asking people to contribute to help them retire their campaign debt.

    Dodd and Richardson (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    have both endorsed him. Maybe that is what they were promised.

    because they dropped out (2.00 / 0) (#105)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    before their bills got this high, they could still PAY their debts.

    can Hillary still pay hers? if so fine reject it and she and her supporters can pay off the $15 million in debts and the $11 million in loans.


    maybe in a "typical primary" but as we (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    know this isn't typical. obama and his campaign have crossed the line time and again.

    OMG. I just went (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    to a local garden spot and was talking to the owner about the election.  This is someone who's right in the midst of her busiest time of the year, who doesn't blog, and who barely has time to watch the news.  She said she really didn't want to vote for McCain, but she doesn't "like Obama all that much."  She preferred Hillary, but admits it doesn't look good.  

    She then asked, "Don't the democrats party know they're splitting the party right in half?!"

    Ya could have knocked me over with a feather.  People get it.  It's not just people on the blogs.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    She said she might write in Nader to send a message.  Oy.

    OMG OMG OMG... (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST
    And i've met many Obama supporters who say that Hillary is splitting the party by continuing? What's your point?

    Is the person you met qualified to represent the "people"?


    Hillary is splitting the party (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    by continuing?  I'll bet the voters in the remaining states don't think that.  What's your hurry?  Afraid she might pull off a victory after all?

    My point, oh clueless one, is that people besides bloggers are paying attention, and you can't assume that everyone is going to flock to Obama in November.


    i think that poster intended the message (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    to be that the democrats are splitting the party. true that!

    Kcarob (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST
    you have posted 28 comments here today -- your first day. Please come back another day and limit yourself to 10 comments in a 24 hour period. You are chattering.

    More Obama BS (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Terry M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    A lot of campaigns incur debt alomg the way - indeed, probably most do.  Not as big a deal as one might think.

    This "Hillary is in debt" narrative sounds a lot like the "50 supers are going to announce for Obama" after Ohio bit that circulated awhile ago, or the party elders are furiously working behind the scenes to secure Hillary the majority leader spot or Governor of NY  so she'll dropout story that circulated before Penn.

    The Obama people have been saying for months that the forces of destiny are lining up against Hillary. Nothing new. And Obama is wrong as usual about the power of the Hillary camp. He can't win outright so he has to come up with some story to deflate Hillary supporters.

    Hillary won Indiana.  That was the tie-breaker per Obama himself.  She is just as viable as ever.  

    I say on to the Convention! Stop the losing streak of the Democratic national party!

    What supers need to remember is the Ned Lamont campaign.  He won big over the national party's former VP!  Lamont was extremely popular with the left wing of the party and esp. with the netroots because of his opposition to the Iraqi war.  So, Lieberman went around him and won handily because he is a moderate.  Most of the electorate is in the middle, and Obama's essentially a single issue candidate - Iraq.  That is not the most important issue to most Americans. So long as Dems keep running candidates who most appeal to the far left of the party - such as McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry - the party will never get the White House back.  

    Hillary is the party's best hope in the fall - that is the metric which now should count given the virtual tie btwn Obama & Hillary in every other regard.

    Hillary's debt (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by AnnL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    According to the Josh Marshall (you know, he who must be obeyed) says Baracks small donors should not bear the burden of Hillarys bad campaign, that's not what they gave for.  Charming these Hellary haters.

    I almost agree (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I didn't give so that Hillary's debt could be paid.

    she has supporters then can step up, she can forget the $11 million in loans, and her supporters can raise the another $15 million to foot the bill.

    but I know my hard earned and then donated dollars weren't given to pay her debts and then have her supporters attack him for it.

    forget it people say Hillary and her supporters can pay it, then let em pay it.


    yes, well, people (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    didn't give to John Kerry to fight election irregularites to watch him break his promise to do so.

    Another bright one, he is.


    Yes I agree. (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    I am one of the 1.5 million small donors and I don't want to pay her debts. NOt when she is a triple-digit millionaire and everyone here claims that she can raise more in a second, and if not, bill can sell his crap on ebay.

    No One Asked Obama to Pay Anything for HRC (none / 0) (#203)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    I believe the Obama campaign is floating the idea of paying Hillary's campaign debts to bolster the notion of Obama's being the successful one -- it is condescending and purposefully belittling. I'm sure Hillary won't be taken his or anyone else's handout.  The Obama campaign may have succeeded in buying out SDs with contributions to their re-election campaigns (so I hear), but I wager that it will not be able to buy Hillary -- nor any of her supporters.  So, don't worry, your donations are safe.

    If any of the OFB's put their money where (none / 0) (#171)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    their mouths are, I would be surprised.

    really (none / 0) (#124)
    by sas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    draws me to their side

    good Democrats that they are....snark


    all this is just a distraction (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hummingbirdv on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    Folks I got to go to work but this is a waste of time!  SHE CAN HANDLE HER OWN DEBTS!  THE RACE ISN'T OVER YET.  SHE'S STILL IN IT.  This is just a smoke screen distraction to turn our attention away from the prize.  We need people working right now not gossiping about the finances.  If your REALLY concerned make another donation.  I just made my 4th in the last 36 hours.


    oh god, jeralyn, (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    i really wish you weren't posting this kind of stuff.  it really demoralizes and kills the spirit.

    i don't know how the rest of you feel, but for me, as new facts have unfolded, this campaign is no longer simply about winning in november.  i agree with koshembos's comment to shystee's latest post at corrente:

    The issue is not of being pissed off. The issue is that we were rejected, our values disregarded, our past poopooed and our nemeses embraced. The Obamacans are history-less, they are not the continuation of Bill Clinton and even our "god" FDR, they are a new beginning. That, of course, is scary and reminisces of the worst regimes the world has seen. We have a history and tradition, we cannot turn the switch and fall in love with Obama. It's over.

    - "Not being jerks about it" solves exactly nothing. It's not hurt feelings; it's a hurt credo.

    Obama intentionally and explicitly discards the FDR coalition which is the foundation of the Democratic party. Namely, he is a 3rd party candidate that is in the midst of a hostile take over of the Democratic party.

    it's driving me nuts to see people talk about kissing and making up and finding a way to "unite the party."  i can't understand why people can't see that it's one thing to "triangulate" when you have a strong conservative movement working against you--and quite drastically another kind of thing to do so when you have a groundswell of popular support for a leftward shift.  there's something very, very wrong about this primary season and i'm NOT going to resign myself to this crap and be an ostrich about it.  GRRRRR.

    Thak you for writing this (none / 0) (#194)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Obama intentionally and explicitly discards the FDR coalition which is the foundation of the Democratic party. Namely, he is a 3rd party candidate that is in the midst of a hostile take over of the Democratic party.

    I guess the idea of a progressive movement was forming a new party.  Who knew until after they did it. And here we are.


    Smells like desperation to me (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    although I have not the faintest idea why the presumptive nominee would be in such a hurry for Hillary to drop out that his campaign is resorting to bribery.

    The story probably is just being circulated to promote the meme that Hillary is finished and Obama is all-powerful.

    Obama used the Clinton Money as a way to get more (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ajbb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    from his supporters in an email saying they have to keep up with the Clintons since Obama personally doesn't have that kind of money. Obama's camp apparently isn't raising the amount of money they were previously or there would be these grand announcements. Also, he's had to spend millions on advertising to try to take her out in the last 4 states. In PA he spent something like $10mil. IMO this was a deliberate attack on Clinton to help dry up her funding. Obama used the Rush Limbaugh effect as a way of explaining her win in Indiana to make her win look like less than it was. Her win in Indiana was a remakable accomplishment. The media is so dumb anymore I can barely stand it. Even Pelosi is now saying this is not over! I think there is something else going on. Dick Morris tried to float that crap about debt being the reason she is staying in weeks ago, I'm not buying it.

    Did you know he was (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    raised by a single mother?



    Hillary has all that money for the general (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by lorelynn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    Can't she use that to pay off her campaign debts if she drops out?

    Essentially, he's trying to purchase his right to the nomination. He is so ugly that I just don't know what to think. I can't believe someone like this is a member of the Democratic party.

    I think I have a better question. (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    Why leak it?

    It's an attempt to demoralize Clinton supporters and humiliate her.  Part-and-parcel with the Obama/Blogger Boys/MSM strategy for the past several months.

    Eearth to Obama campaign:  if you want the votes of Clinton supporters, cut the crap.  Stop leaking this stuff and deal with Hillary directly.

    At this rate, the only thing that will make any of this good again is a unity ticket.

    Where is Obama (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    now? He had condescendingly said in the past, "she can stay in the race for as long as she wants". Sunday, on Meet the Press he said the race will continue "until Hillary drops out" or he gets to the magic number. Does that sound like someone who is going to give her millions of dollars, or someone who thinks she deserves to lose as much money as she decided to risk?

    If he wants to show some kind of compassion for Hillary supporters, he needs to give another famous speech that reminds the media how this process works, and that it is wrong, blatently wrong, for them to demand the process stop simply because they are still terrified she'll manage a win if she gets to convention. I can't respect him when he allows the media to bend the process into an unfair "take" (it's sure not a win) for him. "Stealing this nomination" is, in fact, underway. It's just not being done by Hillary. The party is divided. It's just not the fault of anything Hillary has done.


    Joelarama, if he wants the votes (none / 0) (#198)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    of Clinton supporters, you say??  After all the lowball tactics this slimy toad has pulled, he could walk on water, find a cure for all cancer that tastes like ice cream, end global warming and world hunger, AND get me back into my high school prom dress and I STILL wouldn't vote for the sanctimonious pr-k!

    He's just trying to purchase (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    the Clinton brand.  It's all part of his new politics.  Hillary Clinton Campaign (tm) a division of Democatic Party (tm) which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of ObamaCorp.(tm).

    Amen. Lambert had a blog post about (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by tree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    the Obama campaign as hostile takeover. It made a lot of sense, sad to say.

    Think of it all as a hostile takeover, not yet accomplished but well on the way. Steps as follows:

    1. OFB are noisy shareholders generating buzz

    2. Investment bankers (the funders) supply the capital (teebee!)

    3. Loss-making divisions -- working people, the poor, the old, anyone who needs government to work -- are downsized or cut loose; Donna Brazile was sending a message to the backers; it's just business.

    4. Assets -- remaining reputation of Dem Party -- are stripped to repay the investment bankers (coal, nuclear)

    5. The shell of the Party is sold to a bigger fool

    6. All the players get good jobs in the Village and sleep the sleep of the righteous!

    The Question is: what will it take to convince her (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    to drop out.

    This is just one of the several scenarios the media has come up with. The media is like a relay race. At the close of one program, the following moderator grabs the baton and keeps spinning the same story until someone along the way comes up with something even more insulting against the Clinton camp.

    Tomorrow they will have come up with yet a new idea. They are so desperate to be right, but the truth is they don't know anything that's coming, so they just keep brainstorming out loud and in public hoping they will hit on it.

    This is a BS story intended to undermine (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    Clinton. She can raise 10 million as the Senator from the second largest state in a month.

    If she ran her campaign into this much debt (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by debrazza on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    It was really irresponsible of her.  We all knew that the odds were long for the nomination since WI.  Even after wins in OH, TX and PA, he continued to increase his pledged delegate lead.  At some point you have to make a cost-benefit analysis and look at things with a cold look at the facts.  And while she knows she still has a lot of supporters, if you don't have the money it is irresponsible to continue.

    One major concern for me is that a huge bulk of that debt is to Mark Penn, who is owed at least $5m, if not more by now.  There is no reason why she should have continued to pay that wanker millions for the horrible way he has run this campaign.  I have also heard that Wolfson gets paid hundreds of thousands a month.  I know he does a great service, but this is not a campaign that even considered from the beginning that it should be run within any rational budgetary demands.  Why stay at the Bellagio in Vegas?  Why fly ordinary staffers around the country first class?  The catering bills in Iowa were atrocious.

    The way that this campaign has been run both financially and strategically has been a disaster.  And since the end of Febuary, the strategy finally was found, but all of the money was already wasted.  It's a disgrace and while I think she would be a better GE candidate, I think it is wrong of her to continue to ask moderate income people to continue to donate to her campaign, when it seems clear that money is not to continue to run a campaign, but to pay off Penn, who is a multi-millionaire.

    If the Obama campaign wants to pay this off, more power to them, because if not, Hills will have to fundraise for years into the future just to retire this debt and in the meantime, a lot of small businesses are going to suffer.

    It's an individual choice (none / 0) (#186)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    to donate to any candidate.

    Give people some credit, whether they
    donate to Hillary, Obama or McCain.


    When Bill left office (none / 0) (#199)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    He was 3m dollars in debt.  He paid it off in no time, in addition to paying the legal debts of his WH staff from years of pointless investigations.  The total was in excess of 25m.  So go away, we're not buying what you're selling.

    You cannot pay off campaign debt this way (none / 0) (#211)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:44 AM EST
    Except for the personal loans, all campaign debts must be repaid from contributions that are subject to the contribution limits.  Perhaps with the loans, she is transferring the debt of the campaign to her personally and then plans on paying themselves back through more books, speeches and Burkle, but I think that their campaign debt is greater than that.  On May 20th we will find out exactly how much when they are forced to release their financial data, but last month it was $10m, with another $5m in personal loans.  Considering that the campaign has not been eager to release it's April fundraising totals yet when they have typically released that information on the first day of the next month, I think speaks volumes.  I would not be surprised if the campaign debt is now $15-20m, not including personal loans.  And all of that debt, except the personal loans, will have to be repaid through contributions subject to federal contribution limits.  Which means that they will not be able to fundraise for those debts from existing maxxed out donors until January 1st.

    How condescending (4.55 / 9) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    If they would do that leaking it is insulting.  These guys are real pigs.  

    This would not be the first lie they told (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    I'm just saying. I don't trust those B@ST@RDS!

    Stellaaa (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    you are so freaking right, and women all around the country are seeing these tactics for what they are: bullying bullsh*t.  The more they push, the more we will push back.  We've got some big wins coming around the corner and I have not given up on Oregon.  No matter what the media says, she was not expected to win anything last Tues.  Mr Potato Head himself said (prior to the election) that if she won Indiana, it would be a game changer.  The only thing that's changed now is the freaking spin.

    And let's remember a few facts here:

    1.  The Clinton name alone can raise the funds to cover these debts in a week.  Bill can crap and sell it on eBay and still have change in his pocket.

    2.  Wins in WVA and KY will bring in even more donations.

    3.  She's got 25mm banked for the ge.  If she doesn't make it to the ge (which, hello, this is by no means a certainty) she can roll that money into her senate coffers, and in turn bail out her presidential race.

    4.  The woman is a freakin' millionaire.  Where did that get lost in the equation?  She didn't have to beg a slumlord to help her get a house.  She's got the dough to do it herself.

    5.  Obama has had all the money in the world to spend and HE STILL KEEPS LOSING.

    6.  I dunno; I just like to keep these things even.  And I am still donating, and so are other people.  NOTHING HAS CHANGED EXCEPT THE MEDIA SPIN.

    LOL* (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    So true about your e-bay comment.

    That's why this entire discussion is downright silly.


    Except that he won. nt (none / 0) (#128)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST

    Except that he didn't win (none / 0) (#190)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    IN, CA, PA, OH, NY, NJ, TX or FL for that matter. He only won the state he was expected to win (NC). The fact that you buy the media's after-the-fact spin that she had to win NC doesn't make it so -- she had to win IN, and she did. Furthermore, I still don't see that he has reached "the magic number" to win the nomination -- the fact that he may be closer to that number then Hillary doesn't mean squat -- close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If your guy was a "winner" he would know that.  

    SO DID SHE (none / 0) (#200)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    and she wasn't supposed to!

    yep. it's not a coincidence that (none / 0) (#191)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    there's a renewed media push for WWTSBQ, nor is it a coincidence that i'm hearing more kaiser permanente commercials on the radio lately.  we're smarter and stronger than this crap, folks.  giving up now would be a catastrophic mistake--and exactly what obama, the media, and the corporate good squad led by the health industry want.  

    here's one of my favorite quotes (adapted for present purposes) from FDR--ya know, that dude whose party obama & co. are frantically trying to buy out?:

    "We know now that Government by organized [media and marketing is just as dangerous as Government by organized] money [which] is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."


    what are you talking about (none / 0) (#8)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    this happens ALL the time, hell Bill Clinton did it in '92

    but because Obama does it and hillary is a woman it makes him a pig?

    come on! not EVERYTHING he does is sexist just because Hillary is a woman. its standard practice in politics.


    Nothing to do with a sexist pig (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    just a simple pig, doing it to humiliate her.  Get off it.  This is psychological warfare.  

    humilate her how? (none / 0) (#20)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    how is it a humiliation? she can't pay her debts its a fact, and its standard practice that if the winner wants the loser out, pay their debts for them then.

    so you tell me how this practice that even her husband has done now all of a sudden is done to humiliate her.


    Obviously you don't get it the (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    same reaction I do.  So leave it at that.  obama and his crowd are ba$tar%s, pure and simple.  

    please (none / 0) (#41)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    admit that you were wrong and that this practice is commonplace and not some sort of attempt to be condescending. it looks bad when you resort to name-calling.

    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    This is meant to humiliate her and is in line with the Gary IN withholding the votes. If they really wanted to do it they would do it in the back channels, and offer quietly. This is PR and pressure, pure and simple.

    They really don't want any Clinton supporters to vote for them it seems like.


    It's humiliating because it's not over. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    There are still several primaries. Why can't this stuff be discussed AFTER the votes are in? Is it really too much to ask?

    Apparently they had more class (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    Although I am sure you will want to provide me with all the MSM broadcasts of this back then. Silly me, I do not remember this being a big leaked deal with Hillary's husband, or as we know him, President Bill Clinton. Obama could have made this a nice quiet deal which I would hope she would not accept. I don't want my candidate selling out. We can get the debt paid down when it comes to it. And it is insulting. Like the rich father paying off the 'inappropiate girl' to give up the son.

    I am not...! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    Psyops (none / 0) (#201)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    Then why not wait till he actually wins, and let her campaign announce it if it happens?  Psyops, (im)pure and simple.  

    are you naive? of course it is intended to (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    humilate. take it  context please. that is all they have done is try and humilate her. why shut down what these folks think is a winning hand.

    Pretty sure... (none / 0) (#38)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    ... that her campaign has done a decent enough job humiliating itself without Obama's help.

    Her campaign is the one who ran itself into the ground financially.  Obama's campaign had nothing to do with it.


    For someone who ran a campaign into the ground (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    Hillary still beats him in many states despite all the bags of money he hurls around.

    She had 12 years of National (none / 0) (#78)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    name recognition and that did require a lot of spending for the other candidates.

    Money = votes in some ways and Obama can raise money from his record 1.5 million individual donors, pretty much at will.


    All that money (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by g8grl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    and he still can't win a big state.  Couldn't win any of the battlegrounds of PA, OH, MI or FL.  All that money and he a bunch of tiny Republican red states and the AA vote.  I would not be so proud if I was Obama.

    No way to tell (none / 0) (#127)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    if he would have won MI or FL since there was no recognized primary in those states. If they had both campaigned and been on the ballot, we would know. But they didn't.

    He lost in Florida to Hillary. (none / 0) (#192)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    We had a primary and we voted. Obama lost. Why do you think he doesn't want to seat the delegates?? If he had won, they would already be seated.

    If he's winning (none / 0) (#202)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    how come he hasn't already won?  Isn't he the one he's been waiting for?  His only shot is to ignore MI and FL and the upcoming primaries.  That's victory?  

    Good luck convincing anyone that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    lost PA because of name recognition.

    I didn't claim that (none / 0) (#165)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    I was only saying that he needed to spend boatloads of money to make up for years of not being in White House.

    And my point (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    was that by the primary date of a state like PA, name recognition becomes an irrelevant factor: both candidates have enjoyed extensive press coverage for months. Obama had as much name recognition as Hillary by the PA primary and still his boatloads of money lead to a 10-point loss.

    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#174)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    I don't argue with actual facts. Yes, all the money could not win PA.

    But it sure helped him everywhere else and unfortunately, money is what you need. I favor public financing for all elections and free airtime from what are still, public airwaves.


    I just mailed his request envelope back (none / 0) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    I keep sending them back not interested, but they keep showing up.

    Thats ok (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    because I donated again after Tuesday!

    YAY! He with the most money wins!!! (none / 0) (#115)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Yeah, sad isn't? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by tree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    And what's just as sad is that some Obama supporters seem to think that that is a good thing. Faux progressives.

    Obama has a record (none / 0) (#173)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    number of small individual donors, 1.5 million, never before achieved. Now the internet made that possible in 2008, but money does equal support, especially when that money does not come in large lump sums from a few rich people.

    So yes, money can equal support and support equals winning.


    Except that (none / 0) (#182)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    the myth of Obama raising his money on the backs of individual donors has been soundly debunked.



    excuse me! you said what? (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    i don't see her chasing off the democratic base. i don't see her insulting the blue collar workers, the state of israel, women, catholics, conservative religeous groups, anyone not aa. the group is very long. and please let's not forget rev wright. talk about humilating himself, that will go down in the books. the only reason that it hasn't impacted even more in the primary season is because the suckup media is holding off for the political water boarding to come.

    Well today she chased off (none / 0) (#167)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    any American who is not a "hardworking white" person.

    Good luck with that.


    ok helen, since you made that statement (none / 0) (#208)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:37:44 PM EST
    please tell me why you believe that.

    Maybe you didn't see this: (none / 0) (#209)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    She said this today:

    "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

    "There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
    Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos..


    helen, you do recognize humor when (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    you see it?

    I hope he doesn't offer (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    Hillary is a responsible, wealthy adult and one of the most gifted politicians of our time. I am sure she would not want anybody to bail her out of her campaign debt. She would prefer to stand strong as a person and a woman and be self-sufficient. Plus, those of you who've supported her so strongly for so long will certainly want to do your part.

    I don't know if you last sentence was snark.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    ...but I am willing to contribute to help her retire her debt.

    NO!! (1.00 / 6) (#33)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    HRC supporters, you need to step up and finance your candidate.  She needs your help.  She's fighting for you, now you need to fight for her by donating.

    Please donate to HRC immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    She could pay it herself (none / 0) (#95)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Wasn't there a story about the 24million she didn't report? Maybe she is keeping that aside for her debts.

    I thought that was for the GE (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:44 PM EST

    on one hand there are small business (none / 0) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    and vendors who want to get paid and this would get them paid.

    on the other she has 100 million dollars and she decided to keep going, I don't see why anyone else should pay off her debt when she is able to.

    and if she won't I think her supporters should pay it off first, before the money I gave is used to pay her debts.

    but on the other hand if it once and for all ends all this.

    probably the only way her debts get paid is if Obama pays them, because if she does raise more money she will do what she has been doing, use it to campaign and not pay bills.

    And she really must stop campaigning (none / 0) (#34)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    or the party will be destroyed, Obama will lose in the General and the people will be able to vote.

    oops you didn't get the burn notice i see. (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    obama has already lost the ge. duh!

    What makes you think there are vendors (none / 0) (#160)
    by lorelynn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    who are itching to get paid? Listing something as an outstanding debt doesnt mean it can't or won't get paid. it simply means it isn't paid by the time of the filing.

    I can't imagine that there are many vendors who are worried about Clinton paying them.


    Over 7 years (none / 0) (#164)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    The Clinton's have earned $109M. From that they have paid some $30M+ in taxes, donated over $10M to the charitable foundation, paid for their life-style/monthly bills, etc.

    You sure they HAVE $100M?


    Put half of that in the market (none / 0) (#184)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    which, even when it's bad, doubles about every seven years.  You think they put that dough in a 2% interest bearing savings account?

    Anytime you get into the double digit millions, it's like putting two bunnies in a cage with Al Green playing in the background.  Everything multiplies quickly.


    ps: (none / 0) (#185)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    anything you put into the market, on average, you can take 5% out a year without touching the principal.

    20mm x 5% = 1mm/yr

    I think that'd cover their monthly expenses.


    Stop (none / 0) (#196)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    you've had five posts on Pbama and Hillary and the debt. You're just trying to incite her supporters.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    was reporting the exact opposite this morning. That Obama was going to refuse "old politics" of offering to retire her debt.

    I heard this on mSNBC (none / 0) (#36)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    yesterday.  Eugene Robinson said that Obama was not going to make it easy and was not in a hurry to help her pay of her debt.  But Truthmatters is right, this is actually done a lot by the winner and Bill Clinton did help others in '92.  It would not be anything to shame Clinton, however, not helping her and leaking to your people in the media that you did not want to make it easy for her...that is just bad manners.  Robinson should know what is going on because he has been openly for Obama all along.  This is Obama saying he doesn't need Clinton or her supporters.  That is more consistent with his campaign.  So I actually don't believe he is offering to pay off her debts, at least not yet.

    He will do it (none / 0) (#53)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    Hillary at this point wont be able to pay her bills without giving her campaign more money, why do that when Obama will pay it.

    and Obama will pay it because at this point this is almost a part of elections, the winner pays the losers left over bills.

    he has to much money and the practice is done to often for him to say no, and it would just make him look bad with the party, that and only the people she owes money to will get hurt.

    like I said at this point Hillary is not paying debts if she raises money she uses it to campaign, not pay her bills, eventually Obama will do it.


    I hope he will do it (none / 0) (#63)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    Why is Robinson out there telling people Obama does not want to make it easy for her...it makes no sense?

    I have no clue, (none / 0) (#68)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    maybe Obama didn't want Hillary relying on it so that she still has to worry about how she will pay over $20 million in debt.

    I mean if she knew now Obama would foot the bill, she would run up the tab a bit more, but is she knows eventually SHE has to find the $20 million to pay the debt, well I bet her campaign is a bit more careful with their spending.

    I think right now she is trying to decide, can she cover the $20 million AND make enough to keep running or does she need to take the deal.

    she only has 14 million left of her own money that she can put in, so even if she wanted to she doesn't have enough funds anymore to even put in to it to cover her bills.


    that could be a reasonable (none / 0) (#80)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    explanation but Robinson should stop talking about it then.  I am torn because on the one hand I love that Hillary doesn't give up on the other is seems like it is over. So I can't figure out what is bravada coming from Clinton camp and what is their real intention at this point.  If I had to guess I would say she will keep going until she feels there is a fair resolution of MI and FL or until he has the required number of delegates.  But it would be better to get out before SDs get behind Obama, imo.

    Clinton (none / 0) (#125)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    is staying in 1) because she really thinks she can pull it out if superdelegates wake-up and realize she is more electable in November, 2) because she is standing up for women - her candidacy is historic and means so much to so many women who want to see her go all the way. No matter what happens here on out, she will be in the history books as the first woman who came so close and she is sending a message to little girls everywhere - she is showing girls that you don't need to sit down and shut up when the boys tell you to. Girls are not quitters, they are fighters. And she will make sure that is how she is written about in the history books.

    Because Robinson is high on Clinton hate... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    ...it's a heady drug that, and hard to get over.

    Robinson is not known to make sense (none / 0) (#158)
    by bridget on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    he has to be the most emotionally invested Obama supporter on MSNBC and that says a lot considering  they all support Obama over there.  

    If Obama has offered to retire HC's campaign debts he will only do it for one reason: to make it easy for himself.

    Because he hasn't won yet. He will not reach the magic number either and things are a bit of a mess right now. Who knows what can still come up and hurt him in this campaign. Easy to understand he wants it to be over and decided in his favor now.

    If all the undeclared Superdelegates want to end this right now and hand him the crown, they can do this today. They could have done it yesterday after his NC win if they thought that was a deciding moment in this campaign. They didn't.

    So what are they waiting for? Looks like the Obama campaign wants to know, too, because Obama is taking time off to talk to a few I just read.


    Obama is so a traditional politician (none / 0) (#60)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    must be some newbie to politics who said/believes this.

    Obama will do what is politically expedient when the time comes, sheesh we're all witness to that.

    maybe they call it the new politics since there are bloggers now using computers to spread  the vitriol.


    My question (none / 0) (#14)
    by annabelly on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    Is it even legal? Campaign funds from donations are more regulated than the energy sector these days. We know he has the money, but is it legal? I know the FEC is basically out-of-order right now, but still.

    It's legal (none / 0) (#40)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    bill clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    did the same in 92.

    To buy off a candidate who was close? (none / 0) (#113)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    Or as a good will?

    That was before McCain-Feingold (none / 0) (#212)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    And now we know-it isn't legal.

    Dick Morris (none / 0) (#43)
    by mm on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    Dickhead Morris was the first one to declare that this was how it was going to unfold.  This was on Fox (Hannity) before the PA primary.

    he alone has made me skip over Hoax (none / 0) (#82)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:47:13 PM EST

    Hrm... (none / 0) (#52)
    by decih on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    The whole idea of buying off your competitor leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It also sets a precedent for later primaries. I don't think this would be a particularly good idea.

    pretty sure the precedent (none / 0) (#61)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    for this was set YEARS ago, as this practice was already common when Bill Clinton did it in '92.

    wow do people really not realize how common this is? it would be ironic if Hillary had to decline because her supporters don't realize how common this is because the question then becomes if not Obama, then who will pay her debts?


    Let's see (none / 0) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    Her supporters, her own funds?

    Its not the practice that is being questioned, but the manner in which this is being done.


    well then her supporters (none / 0) (#70)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    need to step up and raise the $20 million she needs for her debt before she is forced to drop out.

    most candidates drop out because they can't afford to run anymore. Hillary is hitting that point.


    How so? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    Even assuming NO ONE gives her a penny she can easily dump in another 10-20 million, right?

    I dunno wasn't (none / 0) (#136)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    it said she can only use half of their join funds, so its 50 million she can only use 25

    so she only has $14 million left which doesn't cover all her bills.

    anyone else know or do I have this wrong?


    I am no expert (none / 0) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    But I don't think there is any 1/2 concept in husband and wife assets.

    there was some talk that Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    is getting such offers, from BO. Maybe talks of his being his VP

    Every (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    SD that has endorsed him he gave tons of money to.

    one is Claire McCaskill (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    the nomine.  No votes down the ticket for those who sold theirs.
    The Unity Pony lost another leg

    Election law (none / 0) (#65)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    Does anyone know how election law works?  Specifically, she has a whole pile of money set aside for the general election that can't be used in the primary. But when the primary is over and if she is not the nominee, could she use that money, or what other options are available for that money?

    good question (none / 0) (#69)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    I forgot about the GE money she must have.

    I heard she had 24 million (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    saved for the GE.

    she has to return it all (none / 0) (#73)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    to the donors who donated it.

    if she is not in the General Election, then she can't use those funds for ANYTHING. including paying her bills.

    she will have to issue refunds if she drops out of the primaries.


    heh (none / 0) (#150)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    But what's about the interest she's getting on it?  And is there a deadline to refund it?
    And what about donations after the fact?

    I'm just saying there are probably loopholes.


    I believe (none / 0) (#76)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    a large chunk of that debt, 11 million or so, includes the money that Clinton lent to herself and it can be forgiven, if she chooses. In light of that fact, the debt is not all that bad.

    Also, I met someone who was continuing to fundraise for Dodd to pay off debts, so I guess Obama didn't pay off his debt?

    Sorry to see (none / 0) (#81)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    HRC so deep in debt.  Ok, if she had taken NC then everything would have changed, but how was that going to happen?  It's perhaps not fair that Obama had so much more money, but such is politics.

    why can she pay herself back??? (none / 0) (#100)
    by txprog on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    i dont have a poblem with fundraising to pay off debts to vendors, suppliers, marketers, etc.  those were people supplied a good or service and they should be paid for it.  what bothers me is that she would continue to raise money from average working people to pay herself back.  she is rich..and loaning heself money is a gamble she was willing to make.  i dont think politicians should be able to 'loan' money to their campaigns and if it turns out poorly...then get the money back.  if that were the case then all individual donors should get their money back as well.  i feel the only reason she is staying in is so she can get money from donors to pay herself back.  same reason many politicians stay in a race they cant win.

    what amazes me is how some politicians can fund a generous amount of their personal wealth to their campaign..they are branded as an elitist who is trying to 'buy' the election with their personal fortune.  others can raise and extraordinary amount from small new donors and they are branded as an elitist who is trying to 'buy' the election with their campaign coffers or 'war chest'.  however when hillary uses her personal fortune to 'loan' her campaign money she is branded as a 'fighter' showing how 'committed' she is to the campaign and fighting for all the voters.

    My only question (none / 0) (#103)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    is......do the rules allow her to use the money for the Fall election to pay down the debt?

    I know she's got that warchest.

    Is she prohibited from spending it if she loses?

    she can't use it. (none / 0) (#111)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    if she doesn't participate in the GE, then all the GE funds have to be refunded.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#114)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    but I have no doubt her supporters will cover it.

    We're way too dedicated to even have this be an issue.


    Her (none / 0) (#119)
    by sas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    supporters will cover it.

    I'll be glad to send her money.


    She shouldn't accept that offer (none / 0) (#108)
    by Richjo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    She should use her own money to pay off the debt, rather than the money of democratic contributors. I doubt Bill and her made millions so they could buy a yatch and a few rolls royces.

    There won't be an offer and Hillary won't take it (none / 0) (#121)
    by Belswyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    To take an offer of debt repayment would be a slap in the face to all the other people who donated to her campaign. She won't take it, and I doubt Obama will offer it, seeing the same problem.

    i speculated the big money donors told him (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    to shut it down or no more money. follow the money always.

    MIssion Accomplished (none / 0) (#205)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    Brilliant! -- Let's transfer that mantra from Bush to Obama.