It's official -- Clinton self-funding campaign

by: Tim Tagaris

Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:03


Clinton loaned herself $5 million in January.

Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's communications director, confirms:

"Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.  The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy."

They could have ripped that from a Ned Lamont press release from a year and a half ago.  

The rest of the articles jives with the piece I wrote earlier about why we've been hearing so much about her URL lately.

They are never going to be able to raise even close to what they need on the internet -- or at least I would be very shocked if they did.  Building a list via cheeky online videos and other such gimmicks just aren't the best way to get that done.  In the quarter they initially broke the fundraising record, her campaign did $3.3 million online.   That their immediate reaction is to point towards the internet does not bode well for them, in my estimation.

I gotta expect they're gonna have to go back to the self-funding well again, and maybe a few more times in the near future ...

Update - A reader sends in this note ... Some Clinton Senior Staffers Working Without Pay.
Tim Tagaris :: It's official -- Clinton self-funding campaign

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's official -- Clinton self-funding campaign | 37 comments
Question? (0.00 / 0)
Was $5MM was included in the $13.5MM figure they reported for January?

Bill Clinton in Iowa  Dec 24, 2007

"They say you couldn't stop me from spending all the money I've saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform."

Hopfully, this.... (0.00 / 0)
.... will get people to layoff Clinton for accepting the FNC debate. Given her current fund raising woes, Clinton is now more dependent on free media. As such, proposing a debates every 10 minutes is in her best interest. Shutting out FNC takes a back seat to winning and campaign tactics. I don't think any of us wants a candidate who isn't doing everything in his/her power (that isn't illegal or unethical) to win.

Conversely, can Obama show us that he possess the hunger and ruthlessness necessary to win? Can he tune out his better angels/instincts (debates, spending limits, mild responses to negative attacks) and put his foot down on Clinton's throat and get over the finish line?

Why put his foot on her throat? (4.00 / 1)
At least not yet, when a legitmate path to the nomination is within his grasps. Besdies, Hillary will have no choice but to go negative, and he gains by taking the higher ground.

As for the Fox debate - neither of them should do this. There are plenty of other organizations willing to hold debates.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
You Missed my Point (0.00 / 0)
Moving the battle onto his terrain (paid media/rallies) and off of her terrain (debates/other free media) is what I meant by 'put his foot down on her throat'. Will he press with EVERY advantage he has?

Besdies, Hillary will have no choice but to go negative, and he gains by taking the higher ground.

This doesn't make sense. "No choice but to go negative" implies Clinton thinks she can catch up that way. But in the next sentence assert that doing so hurt Hillary. So why would Hillary do something that hurts her? One of two things has to be true - either you're a better political mind than Team Clinton or negative attacks will work to her benefit.

[ Parent ]
Its not black and white (0.00 / 0)
Targeted political attacks in certain states may help her in those states, but may hurt her in the bigger picture. And because she is going to be desperate to win at least a couple states between now and March 5th, I believe she virtually has no choice but to deal in dirty politics in some states. Virginia comes to mind.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I'm confused (0.00 / 0)
If people oppose Clinton endorsing a Fox debate because they think it is the wrong thing to do, then why is "but it would really help her!" supposed to make it okay?
[ Parent ]
I think the original post is snark n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Because prgressive purity.... (0.00 / 0)
..... takes a back seat to winning elections. Strategic considerations outweigh the impact of one FNC debate.

I'd argue that Obama's rhetorical positioning on healthcare mandates is more damaging to progressive causes than appearing on FNC in one lousy debate. If you want to get steamed about something, get steamed about that. An FNC debate is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

[ Parent ]
Quite the opposite... (4.00 / 1)

I'm 100% for universal socialized health care.

I'm against Hillary's health care plan and in favor of Obama's.

This is because universal health coverage should not take the form of a mandate which forces people to BUY healthcare.  I would rather start by making affordable coverage available to all people.  If they choose to buy gov Health care in massive numbers, the next step is awarding everyone government coverage at birth.

Hillary's is the least progressive long term plan because it could end up forcing every American to buy into CORPORATE health care - and create a privatized profit-based health care situation we can never get out of.

[ Parent ]
Some Problems..... (0.00 / 0)
Mind you, I say this as an Obama supporter.

1) By broadening the risk pool, Clinton's mandate is more likely to drive down costs.

2) Both plans are equally likely to push people to private insurers, and accordingly government insurers. I don't see how one options is more likely to drive people one way or the other.


[ Parent ]
This is how Obama's GE campaign will implode (0.00 / 0)
Russ, in his designated role, will ask Obama how he can afford his healthcare proposal without mandates.

If anyone proposed eliminating the health insurance industry with the stroke of a pen, the focus would be on the millions (millions) of employees put out of work.  That idea does not live in the real world.

All of this is smoke screen for the fact that Republicans know they cannot let the Dems pass healthcare reform or they're doomed.  Obama is feeding Republicans the rhetoric they can use to fight healthcare reform, instead of using his amazing popularity to lead and educate voters.  HRC's proposal is politically risky but honest about fiscal realities.  Do you want her to lie?

[ Parent ]
Not so much (4.00 / 2)
prgressive purity takes a back seat to winning elections

I don't think I agree.

Even if one accepts the idea that all that matters is some Democrat become president-- not who the Democrat is, what "Democrat" means to them, or what principles or values they'd govern by-- I would point at the 2004 election. In that case the Democrats quite arguably picked our candidate on the basis of who could win an election, and gave up progressive purity as too risky a goal. What we very quickly found out was that "who can win an election?" is not really a very easy thing to predict, and by placing a heavy emphasis on "electability" we had second-guessed ourselves into picking the candidate least equipped to win an election.

Meanwhile, getting back to this election, believe it or not being willing to do or say "anything" to win an election isn't even the best way to win an election. Clinton has been finding that out the hard way recently, in that we are seeing many voters actually more turned off by the lines Clinton is willing to cross than they are swayed by the tactics that crossing those lines opened up by her.

In 2004 voters ate up amoral politics with a spoon, of course, but this isn't 2004. People won't fall for the same trick every time, and I'm not so sure voters are going to put up with Rovian at-all-costs tactics forever; at any rate so far such tactics aren't working in this election, not the primary, anyhow. It seems pretty ridiculous to talk about Clinton being more equipped to win elections when so far, in terms of the apparent count of delegates assigned by election, Obama is winning the election. If Clinton can beat the Republicans, shouldn't she at least be beating little ol' Obama, set back as he is by this ruthlessness gap you're complaining about?

Finally, tactics have consequences. Bush did the win-at-all-costs thing in 2004, and he won. But because the election had been won on cheap tricks and superficial division rather than sincerely building a consensus from the American people, the victory quickly turned to something like backlash. The support he'd built evaporated, the coalition he'd built fell apart utterly, and his party lost big in the 2006 elections and now looks quite likely to not do much better in 2008. Bush himself is weathering all this just fine, of course; but his party is much worse off. In fact, one could fairly say that the Republicans (and even conservatism as a movement) would be much better off right now if Bush had lost in 2004. Likewise, maybe in the end this win-at-all-costs willingness you praise will help the personal political career of Hillary Clinton. Will it help us?

Maybe there are some things which shouldn't take a back seat to "winning elections".

[ Parent ]
Oh brother...... (0.00 / 0)
My comment was directed at the very minor issue of legitimizing FNC through participation in one debate. You've taken this one situation, placed in the context of a brad prinicple, and argued against sacrifice. I'm fine with a couple of small sacrifices given the magnitude of the prize (winning an historic election). There's a difference between a couple of minor (and temporary) deviations from progressive orthodoxy versus a wholesale sellout in favor "winning elections". I trust myself to recognize the difference, as I do the Clinton campaign.  
[ Parent ]
Mandates (0.00 / 0)
Mandates are not necessarily progressive.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I wonder how much... (0.00 / 0)
..money they really have?

Here in NYC, I watch so much cable news - and I didn't see one single TV ad for Hillary in the run up to Feb 5.  Saw tons of Obama ads.

Is it just because it was her home state, or did she have to be really careful about how she spent?

They have (0.00 / 0)
$35M. To Obama's $1M.
[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)

Oh good.  That makes the Obamas most like average Americans of ALL the candidates.

[ Parent ]
What I was asking about (0.00 / 0)

wasn't their personal net worth - but how much money their campaigns have right now.

Anyone have that?

[ Parent ]
I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Sexism (2.00 / 2)
People forget Clinton won the most popular votes yesterday in addition to Super Delegates while Obama won more states and pledged delegtates. It doesn't help Clinton's campaign when the MSM, DC and progressive blogosphere are all against her.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
What the F$%#? (4.00 / 3)
"Sexism?"

How about people against the War?
How about people who don't like lobbyist?
How about people who are consistently against torture?

Go away if you are just going to say "sexism."  That is insulting to a lot of women who support Obama, for real reasons.

[ Parent ]
Uh (0.00 / 0)
There are also women who support Clinton for "real" reasons.  Don't tell people to simply "go away" if you happen to disagree with them, especially considering there have been scores of Obama supporters who have falsely screamed "racism."  I say this as a Latino yet apparently according to some Obama supporters that must mean I have a "problem" with blacks.

To dismiss the role of misogyny in the corporate media's vilification of Clinton throughout this campaign is dishonest.  Misogyny is bigotry and should be treated as seriously.  Instead, the media and blogosphere (overwhelmingly run by white men) revel in it by blatant double standards and outright smears.  It's sick that Democrats and so-called progressives have been largely silent on the issue (compare to when Bill Clinton rightly attacked Obama's voting record on Iraq and the screams of horror from the media and major Dems like Emanuel and Kennedy).

As for last night's coverage of Super Tuesday, I think their love affair with Obama is more political than anything.  He's the one they want to run against McCain.  To think a "change" agent would be overwhelmingly embraced by the corporate media is nonsense.  He'll win the nomination, I'm certain, but it'll be miraculous for him to win in November (I'll vote for him so don't start shrieking).

My God, with the media solidly backing him and doing his dirty work for him, he's performing at his absolute peak right now and yet he still didn't destroy Clinton on Tuesday.

[ Parent ]
sexism my hot, delicious, ass (4.00 / 2)
she won the popular vote by less then a percent, and super-delegates don't count until the convention, because they can switch at any time

oh, by the way, obama won 14 states  

[ Parent ]
Clinton has lost electability (4.00 / 2)
Her electability argument just went down the drain.

not even out of the primary and she's out of cash.

Obama doesn't even have to say it

"Why vote to put me against McCain?"

"Because i can fundraise better the the republicans, and clinton can't"

she's already got at least $20 million (4.00 / 1)
raised for the general, if memory serves.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
Whoever wins will be flush with cash.

Most voters don't care about fundraising anyway.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
Questions - (0.00 / 0)
1.  Does this mean she is going to have to take time off from campaigning to attend fundraisers?

2. Is her cash situation serious enough that she won't be able to compete in the ad-war with Obama?  

Where did Sen. Clinton get this money? (4.00 / 1)
Is this money that she made selling books? Her husband made giving speeches as a former President? This isn't like being a self-made millionaire or having family money -- the Clintons wealth is directly tied to their success in politics.  

It's an unsavory loop -- get $$$ from being a public official, spend $$$ to stay a public official.  

John McCain

Agreed.... (4.00 / 1)

I can't believe that anyone is OK with Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton - it's NOT democracy, it's aristocracy.
[ Parent ]
interesting (0.00 / 0)
An interesting new line of attack for Obama.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
I guess this explains (0.00 / 0)
why she stopped paying her only staffer in WI a few weeks ago. The campaign found him housing with a local Democrat supporter, but stopped paying him.
Obama may raise $5m today alone, probably more (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

The small donor, Obama activists are giving to the campaign today in record numbers.  The contrast between Clinton's loan and Obama's small donor support is telling.  This will have a huge effect on the campaign.

Why is this news? (0.00 / 0)
Mitt Romney self-financed to the tune of $40 million to $50 million--consider what he spent on the Iowa straw poll alone.

Yet Hillary making a $5 million loan to her campaign is news?

It's news because it speaks volumes about the campaign's (0.00 / 0)
ability to raise/spend the amount of money her leading challenger is.
[ Parent ]
what... (0.00 / 0)
do you guys think about the concept that she could be playing this card to create an underdog storyline that will benefit her if she can manage to win or at least narrowly lose some of the supposedly Obama friendly states that are coming up? I don't have any info to support this and am an Obama supporter but the thought crossed my mind that this would be a good way to create a comeback kid narrative.
Obama raising over $6 million in last 24 hours (0.00 / 0)
that's quite a response ... ow!
Bill Clinton on Self-Financing, 2007 Version (0.00 / 0)
It's official -- Clinton self-funding campaign | 37 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox