Report: Obama Tells His Finance Committee to Help Hillary With Debt

Via The Swamp at the Chicago Tribune:

A Democratic source with knowledge of the situation said Obama instructed members of his national finance committee during a conference call today to help Clinton with some of the $10 million she owes to vendors.

The former first lady, who exited the Democratic contest on June 7, ended May with $22.5 million in debt, more than half of it from personal loans to her campaign.

I wonder if he used the word "some" as a limiter and if so, why? Why not just ask them to help her with the $10 million she owes to vendors?

It seems to me she will be raising more than that amount for him during the general election campaign from her donors who maxed out to her. Why wouldn't he ask the same of his big donors?

Again, this is only about the amount she owes to third parties. Hillary is not asking anyone to reimburse her for the $10 million she loaned her campaign which she has said she views as her personal investment.

< Pass the Fruitcake | Keeping America Safe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's not a quote (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
    Journalists weren't on the call, and no quote is attributed by the author.  The "some" just looks like plain English to me: Obama donor's won't be paying back "all" the debt, so their fraction is therefore "some" of the debt.

    I mean, if you want to read meaning into the text, you could just as well argue that had the author left out the "some", it would have disrespectfully ignored the contributions of Clinton's own supporters.

    Meh.  I guess you can be offended if you want.  But I just don't see it.

    I think you can understand, though (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:15 AM EST
    why there would be some vigilance here about Obama's words.

    They weren't his words (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:55:42 AM EST
    If it was a quote, that's one thing.  But they are not.
    In any event, HRC has said she is only looking to pay off her vendors, not her loan.  In light of the email she sent to her email list asking for help, Obama's supporters would only be paying "some" of the total.

    With all due respect (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:22:30 AM EST
    that's your interpretation.  I have no reason to trust it, since you weren't there to hear it, anymoere than I do some random MSM reporter.

    What do you mean (none / 0) (#189)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    my interpretation?  If there aren't quotes around the statement, then there's no possible way to know what the exact message of his statement was.
    You attempting to color his effort as half-hearted with no basis in fact.
    I think the fact that he is willing to help her retire debt in any way is positive.  What are you looking for?

    Geez. Exactly. (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:31:07 AM EST
    If there are no quotes around the statement, there's no way to know what the exact message was.  Your interpretation has no more validity -- and actually less -- than the reporter who was there.

    The fact that he is willing to help retire her debt is no more and no less than what is traditionally expected of winners of major expensive contests.  They all do it, although generally with much less trumpeting of their generosity.

    What am I looking for?  I'm looking for nothing, frankly, from Obama.  I'm suspicious of Mr. "You're likeable enough."  He excels at sly putdowns and daming with faint praise.


    If that's the approach you want to take (none / 0) (#193)
    by mbuchel on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    then I could just as easily hold a grudge against HRC for running like a republican using words like "obliterate" wrt Iran and saying that Obama is not a muslim "as far as I know."
    I, however, have let it go.  I realize that my anger towards HRC during the primary was overheated and I don't doubt that she will work hard for Obama as the nominee - as any fellow party member and friend of the left should.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#4)
    by democrattotheend on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST
    I think there is too much reading between the lines going on here.

    BTW, I'm fairly new to this site. Do you rate comments you like with a 5 or a 1?


    Rating (none / 0) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17:49 AM EST
    It would depend on wether or not you find the comment productive? A rating of 5 is good. A rating of 1, not so much.

    A 5 is for a comment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:42:35 AM EST
    that you believe is exceptionally written or contains terrific content. A 1 is to rarely be given. It is for a comment that violates the site commenting rules or contains demonstrable falsehoods or is incomprehensible.

    You should not give out "1"s based on whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoint expressed.

    When it comes to my attention that someone is troll-rating all comments expressing a particular view or by a particular poster who has not violated the site rules, I undo all their ratings.


    I get a lot of 1's (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:10:15 AM EST
    based on content.

    I think people hate me. :P


    Ooops. (none / 0) (#178)
    by mrjerbub on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    I've been slinging 1's at everybody that insults the Clintons. Anyway to change them on my own? I mean past rates?

    I agree, they weren't direct quotes. (none / 0) (#59)
    by RosieScenario on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:35:04 AM EST
    I really think this is good and positive news.  No intended slights, just clumsy writing by a journalist.

    Thanks! I'm sure many Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:21:08 AM EST
    supporters will follow your lead and keep their wallets closed when he needs the bucks, as he does now.

    I guess you missed the point of maxed out supporters from one campaign helping the other so um . . . ;)

    veracitor's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:54:54 AM EST
    (the one you are replying to.) It was insulting to Hillary.

    heh, I should have held my tongue (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:09:29 AM EST
    also. Just finished watching Pelosi on Greta. . . . time for a break and a dog walk :)

    Good, she's paying down the debt WITHOUT HIS HELP (none / 0) (#79)
    by Check077 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:39:02 AM EST
    ...ANYWAYS! Her supporters are continuing to support her by paying down her debt...

    They efforts are respectable while considering to
    $20-$22 Million in general election funds.


    Perhaps you might (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    want to compare Obama's FEC report with Hillary's FEC report before your pop off with unsupported statements about the money spent to compete.

    When I clicked on the link ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    ... the first paragraph was this:

    "Comes word tonight that Sen. Barack Obama is ready to help Sen. Hillary Clinton clear some $10 million in debt owed to vendors who served her campaign for president."

    Then, the third paragraph, which is quoted above by Jeralyn provides this:

    "A Democratic source with knowledge of the situation said Obama instructed members of his national finance committee during a conference call today to help Clinton with some of the $10 million she owes to vendors."

    Appears to be nothing but a case of bad writing. It is interesting that there is not a quoatation of a source to be found in either paragraph.

    No big deal either way. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:11:03 AM EST
    It costs him nothing to say something like that. Nothing wrong with it, nothing all that great about it.

    Words (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by lynnebrad on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:10:18 AM EST
    Sheesh, I think everyone needs to chill on the wording. That is the problem with our politics. We spend so much time slicing and dicing the exact meaning of the words people use when most times they are misquoted, or just speaking top of mind or informally.

    He has asked his donors to help HC. He cannot pay off her debt from his funds. That is it. Given that he really needs and wants her support, there is no way he wants to hurt her.

    If this is Unity, What is Divisive? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Amaliada on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:43:17 AM EST
    Really, Jeralyn - I love your blog; at least I did wholeheartedly until this primary.  At times it just became too painful to read because of the tone and tenor of the postings.

    I'm not an Obama supporter - I really liked Edwards enough to give him money.  I haven't given Obama a dime and probably won't.  Didn't give Clinton money either.  But after Edwards left the campaign, I knew I would unreservedly vote for the Democratic Party's nominee.

    But it seems that you used a very lawyerly tactic of deconstructing someone else's statement and applying your spin to Obama in the matter of raising money to pay off Senator Clinton's .

    Of course, I, too will vote for Obama but let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt until we know we've been had.

    I'm personally much more exercised over the doings in Zimbabwe and the FISA telecom immunity vote.

    Speaking for myself only.

    talking points???? (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:38:28 AM EST
    maybe before you write a very long post filled with "talking points" you chould check your facts.

    Yes, the Clintons earned $110 million over an 8 YEAR period.  But, they certainly don't have 110 million in the bank.  They paid their fair share of taxes on that which we now know because they released their tax forms.  They paid over 33 mil in taxes.  They also donated millions to charity.

    Hillary also loaned her campaign around 11 million of her own monet which she DOES NOT PLAN to pay back to herself.  That 11 million is her own investment into her campaign.

    I could discuss all the other "talking points" you rambled on about.  But, they've been disected enough.

    Maybe you just need to get yourself out of the hate-filled haze you are living in and move on.  It can't be very pleasant for yourself or those who are around you on a daily basis to live with this hate-filled attitude.

    It's business (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:40:17 AM EST
    It makes perfect sense for Obama to work to clear her debt. He wan't the Clinton's to work for his election and he knows they have considerable clout. Her debt is small potayoes when compared to the money and dividends he'll receive. Unlike some of the comments from his supporter, Obama needs the rift to end and now. It hurts his campaign, the party and his bottom line.

    and one more point (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:41:35 AM EST
    Hillary has OVER 20 million in her campaign that is designated for the general election.  THis is money that was donated to HER by donors that had already maxed out for the primary.

    She cannot use that money to help pay off her primary debt.

    But, she has ASKED her donors to send in requests to have those donations re-directed to Obama's general election campaign.

    So, she is asking her donors to help Obama as well.

    You might want to look at ALL the facts before popping off.

    From the (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:40:14 AM EST
    chicago tribune:
    Sixty percent of the Obama campaign's funds come from people who have given at least $1,000 -- the kind of donors who are most often recruited by bundlers. Less than 30 percent of his contributions came from people who gave less than $200.

    Bullocks (none / 0) (#190)
    by Seantbr on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    According to the FEC Obama has raised $287 Billion dollars so far.  Of that, $187 Billion came from donors giving less than $1,000.  Ergo 65% of his donations have come from under $1000 donors.

    Perhaps this last month he raised more from top dollar donors, but the majority have come from people who are unlikely to open up their wallets to a person who got into debt attacking their candidate.


    Please stick to the topic at hand (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    No one is attacking him for having big donors.

    People are questioning the frequent claim of his campaign and his supporters that he gets most of his money from small donors.  Since that claim was used as his excuse for opting out of public financing, which he formerly supported, it is perfectly reasonable for people to question 1) its veracity; 2) what is being counted; and 3) how.

    You are one person.  That means that in any analysis of his donor base and average or total donations, you are one data point.  One data point does not make a trend.  It's irrelevant whether you gave $2 or $2000.  Except, of course, to prove that Obama did indeed have one small donor.

    i deleted the comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    you are replying to. No one attacked him in this thread for having big donors. Mo made stuff up.

    Strictly in terms (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    of money, isn't it far more likely that Obama will get far more money out of Clinton supporters whom Hillary rallies to support Obama than Obama will lose by paying off a portion of a relatively measly $10M debt?

    So can we stop pretending that this is some tremendous act of generosity on Obama's part?

    One of the things that has really irked me most about this entire campaign has been how Obama has managed with his media helpers to get credit far beyond his deserts for every last little gesture he makes, even if by any reasonable account it is entirely self serving.

    So, so true (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Amiss on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    "So can we stop pretending that this is some tremendous act of generosity on Obama's part?

    One of the things that has really irked me most about this entire campaign has been how Obama has managed with his media helpers to get credit far beyond his deserts for every last little gesture he makes, even if by any reasonable account it is entirely self serving."

    He wasnt getting any donations from her bundlers, so  HE asked her to speak to them, a deal was struck, therefore, basically she asks her bundlers to donate to him and he asks his to donate to retire her debt. Nothing noble in it, just politics as usual.


    He will gain (none / 0) (#167)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    that is why politicians do this for each other.  That is why it was odd it was taking them time to work this out.  PR wise, his statements could have come out before Clinton's request to her supporters.  It might make good PR if he tracks the donations he can get on her behalf from his donors... would indicate movement of those willing to 'unify'  

    It's seems a risk for him if it isn't successful.  Clinton supporters might be disappointed if there isn't support coming from the Obama campaign and supporters.


    Obama, money... (none / 0) (#168)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    from now on, when the Obama campaign calls ME and asks me for that donation, I'm going to tell them that I am annoyed that Obama turned down public financing, and refuse. I am annoyed that he turned down public financing. That was an unwelcome "change".

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tek on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    doesn't want his help.  She'll be forced to make concessions to him that she doesn't want to make.

    I think you might be reading a little too much (3.50 / 4) (#1)
    by democrattotheend on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    into the wording of the statement. Granted, some of us Obama supporters tend to do that with her statements at times too.

    I thought it was a good conciliatory gesture on his part. I am glad they will be campaigning together tomorrow, and I think it was the right thing for him to do to ask his donors to help her with her debts. I don't think he was intentionally trying to put a limiter on the statement.

    It is probably true that she will raise more for him than vice versa though, because she has more connections to big donors, being the wife of a former president, and donors are generally more interested in donating to an active campaign than paying down debt.

    BTW, I am happy to see her making good on her promise to campaign for him, and if she continues to do so I will make a donation to help her pay off her debt. It will probably be after the election though, since I am not maxed out to Obama yet and want to focus my resources on winning the election.

    "being the wife"? (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    "see her making good on her promise"?

    I'll let the wife part go, but did you think when she passionately stated for the past couple months that she would work her heart out for the nominee she was just blowing smoke? Or did you miss her endorsement?

    Geeze. Perhaps he said some (if he did) because many of his supporters don't think they should, have a prob thinking they are paying Penn and/or don't want to give a dime that might end up helping her personal loan.


    Yup, no question that Hillary has her own (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    power and connections now, well beyond Bill's legacy.  

    The question is, how can she and her supporters make good use of it?


    I have a funny feeling . . . (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:27:05 AM EST
    she knows exactly how to use it. I'm looking forward to it  ;)

    Sorry if that came across wrong (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by democrattotheend on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:27:25 AM EST
    I knew no matter what I said someone would find something to take offense with. I just meant that a former president probably has a bigger fundraising rolodex of big donors than a first term senator. Sorry if that came across the wrong way. Senator Clinton has many accomplishments of her own and I in no way wished to demean them.

    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST
    for being so civil. I took no offense at your comment.

    Also, thank you for noticing that I phrased the limiter as a question, and I suspect and hope you are right that the reporter-blogger stuck the word in there and it wasn't Obama's intention to limit the contributions to less than the $10 million owed vendors. The word just leapt out at me and I can't quite figure out what it means.


    Serious question (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by moe21885 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:42:00 AM EST
    Do you plan on editing the post? Now that you're mostly convinced that this isn't some nefarious plot by Obama?

    No, I didn't write it (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    the chicago tribune did and I quoted it and questioned it.

    This might reassure you (none / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:19:08 AM EST
    I just caught a report on CBS 2 in Los Angeles where the correspondent reported the following, at approx 4:46 on the video:

    Well, talk about holding out an olive branch.  Now it's reported tonight that Barack Obama today called together his financial team and asked them to do everything in their power to help Hillary Clinton retire $10 million in debt that resulted from the very rugged Democratic primary race.

    My rough and quick transcription.  


    Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    Do you know who the FIRST-TERM SENATOR is in this race?

    Not to mention her nearly (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:31 AM EST
    life-long history of unhesitating commitment to the Dem. Party.  The idea that should would conceivably not "make good on her promise" to campaign for the winner is just CDS.

    I agree, (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by massdem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:11:26 AM EST
    She has always said she would support the democratic nominee - she never said she'd have to think about it.

    There was a horrible CDS report on the... (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:11:12 AM EST
    ...Today show this morning. They just can't let it go. I'm starting to see that it just might be true that the media was more consumed by Clinton resentment than real affection for Obama. Though I supported Clinton I genuinely believed that many of them were truly smitten by Obama, but larger than all of that they can't live without bashing the Clintons. The entire report was innuendo about how the Clintons are still mad at Obama, parsing every little thing they've said lately, throwing in a jab from Nancy Pelosi about how being a woman helped Hillary and making a big point of mentioning that Hillary is 68th in seniority in the Senate. Totally gratuitous and nary a fact in the whole report. Seems like they are trying to spoil any positive effect that Clinton campaigning for Obama might have...pre-poisoining the waters, so to speak.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:13:03 AM EST
    Pelosi said being a woman helped Hillary?

    I remember when a certain person argued that being black helped Obama, and wound up labeled as the worst racist since David Duke for saying so.


    Well I don't know what Pelosi actually said... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM EST
    ...it was that kind of report. They had footage of Pelosi onscreen and a voiceover saying that Pelosi had said that. I assumed they were referring to the comments which BTD blogged about yesterday, but who can tell since the entire report was just gossip.

    No need for that. Her supporters will (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:37 AM EST
    help with her debt. She's a U.S. Senator, not a shill for hire.

    Yes, I'm broke this month but.... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:12:56 AM EST
    ...I think I'll throw a little more money her way this week since I didn't max out.

    can anyone help me understand Obama's claim (2.00 / 0) (#76)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:30:48 AM EST
    about his "small donors".  I heard it reported yesterday that 93% of his donations are under $200 which don't have to be reported in detail.  But, 50% of his total $$$ are from those small donations.  That means the 7% of donataions must be pretty BIG to make up 50% of the cash.  But, here's my question.

    Obama's campaign always discusses this issue in terms of DONATIONS and not DONORS.  This makes me think they are fudging the numbers.  They like to claim that the average donation is $86.  But, they never tell you whether the average donor gives on $86 in TOTAL.

    If an average donor gives $86, but gives it multiple times, does the Obama campaign still consider this a small donor and an average donation even though the donor could have given the $86 average donation ten times and really has donated $860 in total and is by no definition a small donor.

    Do the campaign actually have to report by total donation of each donor.  Or, do they fudge the data by always talking about individual donations instead of donors?

    Doesn't want to offend her (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MyrtleHusseinJune on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    I think he runs the risk of offending her if he were to take responsibility for raising funds for all the debt she incurred.

    Though I think she'd be far better off paying the debt herself. He didn't cause her to create the debt after all. Those were the choices she made so it's pretty generous of him to help at all. Paying the vendors is paramount since this is a direct impact on people lives.... regular people. The should be paid pronto even if it is out of her own pocket.

    No, he can't transfer funds from his campaign to hers, but he can instruct his fundraisers to help raise some seperate funds for her. I'm fine with that if that's his choice. I don't think it does much for women on the whole for her to not do it herself or write off her loans as a "donation" to her campagin. And once her campaign was over and "her fundraisers" decided to help Obama, well, then they're no longer "her fundraisers" raising money for Obama, they're his fundraisers. This isn't a co-nomination.

    I hope to see her come back with the attitude she displayed in her excellent speech when she endorsed him. I'm sure she'll be just fine financially. She's really got to pay the vendors though. :-)

    She'd be "offended"? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:04 AM EST
    I don't think so.  This is common practice in political campaigns.  The loser's ability to raise money to pay of debts is practically nil, and the winner is always expected to help with it.

    As for vendors-- every firm that regularly does business with political candidates knows very well that debts may not be paid off until some time later, if ever.  The smaller local vendors get paid off first by campaigns, the big companies that regularly do business with campaigns and can afford to take the risk for the sake of the PR value for themselves get paid last.

    Oh, and it would help if the folks in these discussions who are new to politics asked more questions and made fewer proclamations about things that aren't part of their experience.


    Myrtle (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM EST
    I hope you don't mind if I just call you by your first name.  In case you missed the news reports, Hillary and some of her staff made a specific effort by convening conference calls to urge her major donors to support Obama.  

    I find the tone of your comment a little too condescending for my tastes.  I hope some of it is due to you not being aware of the steps Hillary has taken to to date to help push support to Obama.  


    You're not reading closely (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:48:10 AM EST
    or for some reason, M. Hussein, what it says in the link (and widely elsewhere for weeks now) re Clinton's loans to herself.  And you also might look into campaign history for some time now as to whether this Obama statement today is common -- if admittedly belated, by past campaign practices.

    "generous"? (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:52 AM EST
    You should probably try to think a little more carefully about what Obama expects to gain by this "generous" move.  Although I find it hard to believe you're seriously under the impression that he does it out of the goodness of his heart.

    "it's pretty generous of him" (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:01:43 AM EST
    excuse me?! What he's asking for is a small amount considering what he hopes to gain financially from her. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if her big donors that are holding fundraisers for him don't total that out right off the bat. And he's also asking for her 18 million voters. As we've seen in the primaries, he can spend a heck of a lot of money and not win against her, and so far, it looks as if she's the only one who's going to try and turn her voters. He hasn't done diddly to reach out.

    Let's see, what's on the calendar for Thursday regarding the 2 . . .  Oh yeah, fundraising and NOT for her.

    I'll leave the womens' issue out for now  ;)


    It's common for primary campaign (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:02:18 AM EST
    winners to pay off the debt of the loser in a close race.

    It's better for the party all around. (I won't say for 'unity' but it is better for morale).  Otherwise she needs to spend time raising money to pay off her debts instead of working to get him elected.  She will most likely raise several times her debt for him by the GE.  It's not any special generosity on his part, it's in his self-interest, and it's par for the course.  

    I've been reading about it as a possibly for quite a while in a variety of MSM, it's no secret.

    I think the tone of your post does not help make the case for your candidate at all.  Do you really want Obama to lose because Clinton 'deserves it?'


    Obama's supporters upset? (none / 0) (#56)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:52:42 AM EST
    I hear that some Obama supporters are saying that they gave money to help elect Obama and they don't want their money given to Hillary to pay off debts.  I can understand that because I know I'd be furious if Hillary gave my money to Obama.

    once money has been given to Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:06:26 AM EST
    he cannot legally give it to Clinton.  All he can do legally is ask his donors to give NEW money to Clinton.  So, the Obama supporters don't need to worry that any money they have given to Obama is going to be given to Clinton.  It would be illegal.

    It's the same for Clinton.  She has over 20 million that was given to her specifically for the general election fund.  And, since she is not the nominee, she cannot use that money to retire her primary debt.  She can use that money for her next Seante campaign.  But, she has also asked her donors who gave that GE money to notify her to redirect that money to Obama's general election fund.  This can only be done legally if the donor specifically asks the candidate to do it.

    So, Clinton has around 20 million to direct to Obama if her donors direct her to do it.  And Obama is only asking his donors to help her out with 10 million of her debt.  He's getting a possible 2 for 1 deal here.  It sounds like a good investment for him to me.


    Deliberately misleading tpm (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    Either his supporters are ignorant of the situation and should spend some time finding out the facts, or they are still, even when he needs her support, engaged in spreading CDS.

    If any of his supporters don't want to contribute to her, they don't have to.  Obama is now engaged in raising new money to retire part of her debt.  Just like she is now engaged in fundraising for him, and her supporters can give or not give to him as they wish.  No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do, much less get in a lather about it.


    Well I wouldn't mind if she was the nominee... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:04:41 AM EST
    ...but so much for unity, eh?

    Per CNN (none / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01:03 AM EST
    Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, retire her debt, an Obama campaign source said Tuesday.

    Obama did not direct members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign, the source said, but asked them to do so if they were so inclined.

    I thought he could just take money from his own funds to pay her debt down.

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM EST
    you can't transfer campaign funds from one person to another.

    not allowed (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:46:17 AM EST
    however, she can ask her contributors who gave to her general campaign fund which is not going to be needed to redesignate their contributions to Obama. She also might be able to ask them to redesignate them to her Senate releection campaign.

    She has more than $20 million in that fund and she can't use it to pay off her primary debt. So maybe they could trade -- he'd get his big donors to contribute to retiring her debt and she asks her donors to redesignate her g.e. funds to him.

    Seems like a fair trade to me.


    Question? (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:02:50 AM EST
    I have wondered and have never seen mentioned; should Hillary be chosen as the VP would her GE funds then be able to be used for the November election rather than returned?

    Impossible (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06:48 AM EST
    But the rules about what you can transfer and where are byzantine. For example, I think, if he so desired, he could shift his whole bankroll to the DSCC.

    And of course all of this ignores state committees, many of which have no contribution limit at all.


    I certainly hope it was a misquote (none / 0) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
    because if Obama is coming across like that, then that's a pretty bad message to send. It might be worth a clarification by their campaign on that score.

    I'm guessing that as far as they're concerned (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
    the less said, the better.

    It wasn't a quote at all (none / 0) (#49)
    by mbuchel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:56:26 AM EST
    I don't think he can (none / 0) (#20)
    by phat on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:21:13 AM EST
    Just give her a bunch of money. The FEC rules about this are incomprehensible, mostly.

    I don't think he can just retire her debt completely.

    He can't (none / 0) (#24)
    by democrattotheend on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    The most he could give her is $2,300, same as anyone else. But he can encourage his donors to contribute to her, which I am glad to see he is doing.

    I might contribute (none / 0) (#27)
    by democrattotheend on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:30:38 AM EST
    But probably after the election, since I have not maxed out to Obama yet and I think it makes more sense to use my donations for the next four months to help win the election, then send a little bit to help Hillary pay off her debt after the election.

    there is a time limit (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:16:19 AM EST
    there is a time limit on how long Clinton can continue to work to retire her debt.  I don't think you can wait until AFTER the election.  It would be too late.  I'm not sure exactly, but I think she has until the convention is over to do it.  But, don't take that as gospel.  I do KNOW there is a time limit.

    I think (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:19:14 AM EST
    the time limit relates to paying herself back for the loans she made to her campaign. Since she's not asking for that money, there may be a longer time in which she has for the other. I think all her other debt is money that is owed to vendors.

    Fair exchange (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:40 AM EST
    She has 22.50 mill for the GE, she can ask to redirect to him I read somewhere today, is that right?  So, it can be a wash.

    Sorry to delete (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:53:26 AM EST
    some off topic comments on health care, but they were very off topic.  There will be an open thread tomorrow.

    I have a question (none / 0) (#64)
    by massdem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:18:36 AM EST
    Can somebody tell me about the rules of public financing.  Obama has declined, while MccCain is accepting it.  Does this mean that after the Republican Nat. Convention that regular people can no longer contribute to McCain?  Or is it just the amount you can donate that changes? And does the limit change on Obama donations?  I donated to Kerry in 2004, but I can't remember if it was after the convention or before.

    It's not unusual... (none / 0) (#141)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    ...for the winner of a close primary to help the loser with their debt, but it is unusual to help pay down such a large debt.  This is a non-trivial "unity gesture" by the Obama campaign.  Certainly it would be nice if Clinton were to ask donors to re-designate her GE funds to the Obama campaign, but I think this is a good general indicator of the two rivals' efforts to make nice and work together to put a Democrat in the White House and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate, in order to achieve common goals.

    It's still in his interests (none / 0) (#155)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    to pay down her vendor debt.

    While her amount may be unusual (I haven't had time to check that), all anyone hears about is what a prodigious amount of money Obama can raise without lifting a finger and so on.  My guess is that while the amounts may be high, the percentages are not at all.


    What did Obama actually say? (none / 0) (#143)
    by minordomo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:55:51 AM EST
    I wonder if he used the word "some" as a limiter and if so, why?

    The comment this refers to, i.e. -

    A Democratic source with knowledge of the situation said Obama instructed members of his national finance committee during a conference call today to help Clinton with some of the $10 million she owes to vendors.

    (emphasis mine) - is a paraphrase within a paraphrase: a journalist indirectly quoting someone else who in turn indirectly quotes Obama.

    Doesn't that seem a little too removed from the source to warrant parsing a choice of words as specific as "some" in this case?

    Re: the semantics, I really don't think (none / 0) (#146)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    the campaign has been claiming what you say they have.  The campaign itself has consistently, to my memory, talked about donations and not donors.  Yeah, it's spin, but we're talking about politics, not church.

    And if you've hooked people unable to write a huge check into giving <$200 over and over, that's something to crow about.  People who give serial small donations are not the same as people dropping $4600 checks through bundlers.

    Will he help with Kucinich's debt? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:58:14 AM EST

    If Kucinich wants to tilt at windmills (none / 0) (#176)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    every four years, he can pay for it himself.

    Hillary's vanity campaign is different? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    (post Wisconsin)

    Yes, although that's not the point. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    The point is that helping Clinton is good politically for Obama.  Kucinich?  Meh.

    (Clinton could've still won post-WI, BTW, if she had run up margins as big as Obama did in his February streak.)


    that poster has been (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST

    10 million dollars? (none / 0) (#191)
    by worn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:51:08 AM EST
    Sidestepping for a moment all this rampant speculation about motives, gestures, hurt feelings, etc., I just wonder if anyone here feels the same way as I do regarding Hillary's "loans" to her campaign. To whit, anyone who wants to be President badly enough to "invest" $10 million of their own money in that effort is someone whose motives give me pause.

    But hey, I don't make that much money. In fact, I rather doubt I'll see that amount pass through my hands for the entirety of my short stay here on earth...