« What Will Happen To Florida And Michigan? | Main | Romney Clues... »

Clinton Weighs A Self-Loan To Finance Campaign

06 Feb 2008 01:30 pm

As first floated by The Page, I can confirm that, according to advisers to the campaign, Sen. Hillary Clinton is weighing a self-loan in order to finance a competitive race against Barack Obama over the next few weeks.

Clinton raised less than $20M in January and has spent most of its store of money on ads leading up to Tuesday's multi-state primary.

Campaign advisers would not say how much money she has left. Officials did not respond to e-mails seek comment.

Upon leaving the White House, both Clintons secured large advances for their memoirs, and Bill Clinton's post-presidential speaking and consulting has left the couple comfortably wealthy, although not Mitt Romney-wealthy.

If Clinton decides to loan herself money, I envision that it would produce at least two countervailing forces. There would be a spate of stories on the End of the Clinton Machine -- that her donor base is tapped out and hasn't been able to expand like Obama's. This force is likely to be very strong, and it is not unfair or inaccurate.

In December, according to the Politico, Bill Clinton strongly implied that the couple had no plans to part with its money.

"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," the former president said.

But perceptually, it could turn her into an underdog, and it could prove Obama's statement today that Clinton is "the frontrunner" to be vacuous. How can the frontrunner be tied for delegates and be nearly broke? The move could help with her grassroots fundraising. She'd be able to show potential donors than she will sacrifice as she's asking them to sacrifice. One can imagine a fundraising appeal along the lines of: "Help Us Match HIllary!"

Truth be told, Clinton cannot afford to allow Obama to rack up delegates by blowing her away in the next set of caucuses and primaries. Clinton needs to find a way to take 42% of the vote of or so in these states in order to limit Obama's delegate acquisition.

Comments (92)

I have sat through a lot of your more ridiculous posts, Marc. But this takes the cake. "Help us match Hillary"? Right. The Democratic primary voter base is filled with people who want nothing more than a multi-millionaire to finance her own campaign. This isn't sacrifice, it's narcissism.

I wonder how Mittmentum worked out for him $50 million later.

The real countervailing forces I would see are these:

1. Where did the money come from? Kazakhstan?

2. This is an example of the wealthy again representing their own interests over the interests of the people.

3. The HRC campaign is doing an end run around campaign finance laws.

Plus, it would have the air of desperation to it.

She can do it - and tactically, she probably should. But it is not without costs - and I would expect her to be hammered mercilessly on the left for this. In the GOP primary, she probably gets away with this. But the claim that she is trying to "buy the White House" with Kazakh/Hsu/Trie/BCCI money would be raised - and it would remind voters of all of the money shenanigans the Clintons got into when they were actually in the White House.

"Help Us Match Hillary"... That's hilarious.

Oh, c'mon. This makes her the underdog? Because her husband was able to cash in his role as a former president to rake in big money, which he then hands over to his wife in her bid for the presidency? You serious with that?

And compare to a couple that just paid off their student loans a few years ago?

Yea, the Obama campaign will hate that narrative.

Not to mention any decent reporter will now feel the need to poke around the Clinton's finances to see where that money is coming from.

I hope it would also start some reporters demanding the clintons reveal their sources or personal wealth.

IS KAZAKH URANIUM SUPPORTING THIS CAMPAIGN?

Hopefully the media will be looking closely where the Clinton money came from ...

Marc, If you could post something about the fundamental organizations in the upcoming states the Clinton folks and the Obama folks have set up?

I know that Obama has raised more money, but he also seems to have created a great grassroots activist machine he can tap for the general election as well. How would a self loan offset this?

I think it makes her look weak, which probably has more of an impact on super-delegates than on the voting public.

Less than $20M? Yes, I'd say $13.5 million is quite a bit "less than" $20M.

Where did 42% come from? Does that have to do with stopping an Obama super majority?

I have to say that I don't think self-financing automatically makes Hillary an underdog. In fact, I think it significantly illustrates her limitations as a candidate. Democrats are donating to candidates, where Republicans have been more frugal with their contributions.

How can the frontrunner be tied for delegates and be nearly broke?

You're missing some important background here, Mark. It's now agreed by everyone that Hillary way, way overspent on her most recent Senate campaign when of course she was essentially unchallenged. Since that time, there has been a sense that her operation has low productivity in relation to dollars spent.

So in addition to unwise spending, it's also clear that HRC had lots of large donations early--and less small donors--so she has run into a kind of structural wall.

Too bad she can't use now all the millions that donors have given to the WJC Foundation, on the promise of an HRC WHite House.

You have been working overtime trying to say that Obama, who more than half the country had never heard speak a year ago, is not an underdog. Now you're going so far as to say Hillary will become the underdog if she can't keep up with Obama's fundraising. She of the vaunted "Clinton Donor Database?" I honestly do not understand your determination to forward the Clinton low bar-setting and spin. They are the freaking CLINTONS. They will never, ever be the underdogs in an election.

When two people who claim they have "spent their life in public service" and come from humble backgrounds, are able to loan tens of millions of dollars to their own campaign, the obvious reaction will be "What's going on with a system where public servants are becoming fabulously wealthy pimping their connections?"

The negative attention this would draw to the Clintons' own crony-capitalist fortune would vastly offset the benefit. You can complain that Romney was trying to buy an election, but at least he earned the money in the private sector (ditto Ross Perot and Bloomberg). But we're in a sorry state if politicians can cash out their connections, then buy their way back into office.

I can't imagine the Obama camp is worried about this. It would be a gift, as it plays right into their narrative.

I'm sorry, but as long as Hillary leads superdelegates 2:1, yes, she is the frontrunner. It gives her the delegate lead, and let's not forget, those superdelegates are party officials and leaders.

I think this talk of underdogs conflates two notions. There is the person who is down at the moment, and there is the person who should have been picked not to win from the outset. Only the latter is the underdog, IMO, and that's Obama.

Otherwise, it's like saying that the Giants were the underdogs from the time then got down 7-3 until they went up 10-7; then the Patriots were the underdogs until they went up 14-10; and then the Giants were the underdogs again until they went up 17-14.

The greater space between elections in a primary than between scores in football game make the comparison less than perfect, but there's still a difference between being an underdog and just being in second place. I don't see Clinton being able to convince anyone that she's a real underdog.

I actually wonder about 2 things:
1) if Marc reads the comments of his readers and
2) if Marc actually tries to reason out the spin that will be coming out of the other corner (in order words what will the opponent of a candidate say about.....)
I bet you in 2 days we will hear Obama saying something along the lines of..normal people, just paid off student loans, not rich enough to finance self, not intent on buying elections, lambasting Romney as a backhand on even the thought of a HRC self-funding

Uh...I guess but didn't Kerry loan himself millions of dollars last cycle in order to win the primaries? What happened? Oh yeah he won the primaries.

You Obama fools are hilarious. No one cares where the money comes from, what they care about is the candidate and the positions...

Obama's Hope Machine will run out of gas eventually when everyone demands details...Unfortunately he has to be stopped before the general when everyone is actually paying attention.

For the Obama campaign: DETAILS PLEASE!!!

PS: Oh there are none? I thought so.

The bigger question will be where the money comes from. There's nothing that stops one of Bill's billionaire pals giving him a few million dollars which he "loans" to their campaign. Unless there's something in the campaign finance laws that prevents them from doing so or requires them to disclose that fact.

And, nope, she'll still be the frontrunner, but she will be perceived as a weaker candidate, which in turn may make Obama the eventual nominee. So you are a couple of steps ahead of yourself--but on the right track.

Wow, what a sacrifice. The Clinton's will dip into the personal wealth they have accumulated while profiteering from their power, in order to gain more power and profiteer more. They are so noble!

Seriously, how many times are you older, baby-boomer voters going to get fooled by the Clintons? Stop shafting us with affinity politics, Enough of the Clintons already.

"Devil is In" if you want details, then go to
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

People:

Try to go on Obama's website--you basically can't
unless you contribute--organization or a stick-up?

Ah ha ha ha ha!

Marc, you are such a shameless shill for the Clinton campaign, and this is your most shameless post yet.

Please, regain some of your lost dignity and admit that you are working for the Clintons.

Hillary is somehow how the underdog? Despite worldwide fame, a beloved husband ex-President who plays her attack job, and the most powerful democratic machine of the last 50 years at her beck and call? Uh, no, sorry. That does not an underdog make.

Hillary raised "less than $20m"??? Why not under $15m? Or why not the truth? What is wrong with saying $13.5, which is what her campaign said?

What a joke.

Anti-Obama people here misunderstand -- I couldn't care less if HRC decides to start self-financing. It's part of our process and currently legal. Go for it. However, it doesn't make her the underdog. It just means few low-dollar donors are motivated to help her finance her campaign.

I can very well imagine 'Help us match Hillary' popping up in an Obama fundraising campaign. Given his strength in money right now, I could see Obama supporters matching Hillary's self loan quite easily - he pulled in 25,000+ donors in 11 hours on Jan 31st, for example.

Yes, that one could backfire pretty easily..

Devil, Kerry borrowed against his Beacon Hill mansion to fund the homestretch in Iowa; he didn't loan himself millions of dollars because he never had millions of dollars. He couldn't borrow from his wife's separately held funds. Clinton, by contrast, has run such a poor campaign that she's maxed out all her donors and is essentially broke halfway through the primary campaign, a campaign in which she is, at best, breaking even. That doesn't say much for her management abilities.

Nor am I impressed in the least, Marc, that she's willing to use her husband's dirty money to keep her campaign alive. That says to me that her ambition is more important to her than either her integrity or what's left of her family's dignity. If she is going to use Bill's money to buy the White House, the press better demand to know where every single dime came from.

Diane:

Yes, because clicking the button that says "Go straight to website" is so difficult. It's exactly like looking down the barrel of a gun.

And Clinton is the more experienced candidate ready to manage this country on day one? She can't even manage her campaign finances properly.

People need to be looking into where Obama gets his money. Its not federal lobbyist but his own state lobbyist.

I will never ever vote for Obama, he is all fluff and no stuff.

People need to be looking into where Obama gets his money. Its not federal lobbyist but his own state lobbyist.

I will never ever vote for Obama, he is all fluff and no stuff.

People need to be looking into where Obama gets his money. Its not federal lobbyist but his own state lobbyist.

I will never ever vote for Obama, he is all fluff and no stuff.

Let's see - Obama has won more states than Hillary, more delegates than Hillary, more of the popular vote than Hillary, has raised nearly 3x more money than Hillary since January 1, 2008, has a larger grassroots donor base than Hillary - and Democratic Establishment is supposed to think that through her self-funding and the use of superdelegates - she's can be a uniting nominee for the democratic party??? If the party is that dumb - then we will lose in November.

1) if Marc reads the comments of his readers and
He doesn't. He doesn't even bother to correct his frequent factual errors after they've been pointed out. But I don't so much care about that; he could learn a lot from his readers since he doesn't seem to know very much about politics.

"Uh...I guess but didn't Kerry loan himself millions of dollars last cycle in order to win the primaries? What happened? Oh yeah he won the p
rimaries"

How did Kerry as a candidate work out for us? Having to load yourself money isn't a sign of support from the voters (who don't forget, all candidates will need in November)

Another thought -- perceptually it does turn her into the underdog, but it strikes me as self-evident that underdog status is in no way, shape or form desirable for someone who has spent 18 months as the frontrunner.

Underdog == good for the insurgent candidate. Not good for the candidate of the party establishment who designed the primary schedule to proclaim her as nominee in short order.

Mark, that's brilliant. I really hope they do that.
Diane, I have no trouble getting on Obama's website without donating.

I have to say I agree with the commentators that don't see how this can be good for Hillary. She might be the underdog if she hadn't already had all the money and establishment behind her, but now it just makes her look like her donations have dried up and she's desperate. If she tries to paint herself as the underdog, she'll look ridiculous. The narrative is all about momentum, and this will only emphasize that Obama is on the rise and she is on the decline. The frontrunner *can* be tied for delegates and nearly broke if they are losing momentum.

Also, I don't think being like Mitt is going to help anyone. And "underdogs" don't self-finance from their book advances.

That said, it may not matter, perceptually, it may be neutral. And the benefit might outweigh any problems--after all, she needs money and needs to do well. But I really don't see any way that this could be seen as a "good thing" for Hillary.

42% in the coming primaries is a ridiculously low bar for the Clintons. They have been ahead in most of the upcoming states that have polls, and Mass proves that a relatively educated population does not necessarily do Clinton in. The candidates are even, and in this competition for delegates, each needs to surpass 50% -- otherwise they are losing ground. I don't see any basis for predicting a "blowout" in the coming couple of weeks.

Here is the details you are asking for:

1) While your candidate voted to authorize the Iraq war, Obama--as an elected official--spoke out against it and with prescience foretold of the burdens America would bear upon becoming an occupying force

2) Voted against the Iran resolution that is a precursor to another conflict in the middle east, while your candidate voted for it--right, if she would have known back then what she knew today blah blah

3) Passed the Lugar-Obama Act, which strengthens our country's ability to keep weapons out of terrorists' hands

4) Passed the Ethics reform act, the most robust ethics reform law passed since Watergate--one we could have used while your candidate was hosting fundraisers in the Lincoln bedroom

5) Though you think this is nothing to admire, he went from Law School and chose to become a community organizer in the streets of South Chicago while Hillary was on the board of Walmart

6) Was unambiguous in his opposition to torture, while Clinton initially supported it's use (link provided http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html

I could keep going, but I tell you what, you go ahead and match me with 6 things of note that your candidate accomplished in her 35 years of experience....I'm waiting...

Well, she did help Wal-Mart suppress unions! That's an accomplishment.

LAC--I'm pretty sure that Clinton's support in Mass came from working class towns in Mass, of which there are many.

I am one of Obama's contributors.. I am a working class mom, wife and student here.. Stop with the lobbyist are a majority of Obama contributors rap. It’s just not true.. Most of his contributions comes from people like me who give $5, $10 and $25 at a time. We are over a half a million strong.. . On Obama’s site when you contribute it blatantly states that you cannot be a lobbyist. Stop making stuff up and just say you don’t want to vote for him..

I am one of Obama's contributors.. I am a working class mom, wife and student here.. Stop with the lobbyist are a majority of Obama contributors rap. It’s just not true.. Most of his contributions comes from people like me who give $5, $10 and $25 at a time. We are over a half a million strong.. . On Obama’s site when you contribute it blatantly states that you cannot be a lobbyist. Stop making stuff up and just say you don’t want to vote for him..

I see this as a clear contrast and tells you a lot about how well Obama runs his org and therefore a window into his management/chief executive style. i think he has a clear operational leadership advantage based on the fact he's not broke and scrambling...

I think whether or not the Clintons use their own money to buy back the White House depends on what the polls say. Who'd like the Clintons to spend some of their own money? Is that the change we're looking for?

Right. Obama does not take money from lobbyists. Clinton takes more money than any other candidate--this was just revealed this week in an AP story.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPnPwl7XNJik&refer=home

If that's your reason for supporting Hillary, you might want to find another candidate.

Hillary Clinton
"Lobbyists represent real people"

See her defend her contributors..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isi6c2s353c&feature=related

Hillary is queen of special interest and corporate support. The Clintons have a history of accepting funds from questionable sources. She has accumulated 50 million from her political career. 'Bout time she used some of it. I'll continue my support for Senator Obama. And yeah, stop with the lies, it makes you look silly.

The bigger question will be where the money comes from. There's nothing that stops one of Bill's billionaire pals giving him a few million dollars which he "loans" to their campaign.

Except that it'd be illegal.

Clinton Global Initiative---->Dirty Deals: Ron Burkle/Yucaipa, Frank Giustra/Kazakhstan, Norman Hsu----->Clinton Wealth---->Hillary Clinton Campaign.

sd - Spot On! Hillary's management of her campaign finances ARE a window into how she will manage our government - taking from power brokers and squandering. That's the change we are looking for alright. That's the management style we want to see in the oval office (AGAIN) - that's what she's ready from day one to do.

Believe me, she may have to self-fund to survive to fight another day, but she will hand Obama the best talking points he's ever had as to why she's NOT the one we are looking for. While Obama's management of his massive 50 state campaign is more impressive every day.

Saturdaypants makes the right point.

Underdogs are the people who walk onto the field and are not supposed to win.

Like the Patriots, Clinton walked onto the field as the clear favorite. Everyone was betting on her--an in fact, they still are if you look at the presidential voting markets. Yes, at halftime it's clear that she's underperforming--just like the Patriots. But she walked into the primaries with massive structural advantages that she still enjoys: 100% name recognition, a beloved ex-President actively stumping for her, a potent existing political machine, money that she and her husband earned because of his political career that allows her to self-finance, many connections to very powerful people built on 8 years of presidency and 7 years of post-presidency, and many favors owed in many states.

For goodness' sake, Clinton was campaigning on "inevitability" for months before the first votes were cast, and two weeks ago, Obama was 20 points behind in national polls. Which leads us to another point against Clinton's "underdog" status. She leads in superdelegates, which means she's basically been spotted points in the primary election. How can she possibly be the "underdog" when she actually has to win fewer votes in competitive popular elections in order to win the nomination?

Really, if you want to be honest with yourself about who's the frontrunner and who's the underdog, think of the article you'd write once one or the other of them locks up the nomination. An Obama story would probably open with lines like "in a result few political insiders thought likely even six months ago, Barack Obama has defeated Hillary Clinton and become the Democratic nominee for President." The Clinton article, in contrast, would likely read like more dramatic version of John Kerry's post-nomination articles, mostly framing her as the frontrunner who'd "beaten back," a litany of challengers (with a loooong discussion of Barack Obama), and how she'd honed her message from the experience, etc.

I get where Clinton's people want to frame her as an underdog. After all, there's nothing better than having all the structural advantages of the frontrunner (which she does) but also undercutting your opponent by having the mantle of "underdog"--which, as John McCain clearly shows us, indicates you are a straight-talking outsider!

But, sorry, just because you're in trouble at halftime, you're not the underdog. You're the frontrunner who's in trouble at halftime.

But, sorry, just because you're in trouble at halftime, you're not the underdog. You're the frontrunner who's in trouble at halftime.

I tried, and failed, and could not have said it better myself. Read your comments, Ambinder -- you might learn something.

Of course she's still the frontrunner. The frontrunner is the one who still has the establishment on her side and considering she has far more superdelegates pledged, it shows she's the establishment candidate. It is a stark contrast to Obama who is clearly emerging as the people's candidate.

That will be the real debate that should be talked about along with the integrity of our elections and how there are absolutely no standards preventing corruption and bribery.

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Since I am now the 50th comment on this thread, clearly Marc's post struck a nerve. My two cents-

Certainly, this has to give hope to the Obama camp that they're in a position to win a potential war of attrition (i.e., what seems to be the most likely scenario on the Democratic side.) I would think that the Clintons, unlike the Romneys, are not as likely to spend as freely on their own campaign as Mitt has and may continue to do...

OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR MINORITIES
Ms. Obama, VP Chicago Hosp, that charges minorities 6 times as much, isn’t cold hearted enough, she also caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs, to be more efficient she said! In 05, elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiaries, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic! Huge blow to a rural town jobs paid a starting wage of $11hr, Company pays top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while destroying middle-class America. Raises the question not only about corporate values but about Barrack Obama's own values. Specifically, while he bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, make $45,000 and up a year serving on the board of Chicago comp that pays her a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill , Obama camp supporter and financial contributor to Presidential candidate Barrack Obama who desperately wants campaign cash from another, criminal or not, Again Obama camp has its hands full with other publically indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received donations in June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday…Of Couse, did axelrod loose his voice?
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

May I just say how impressed I am by the smackdown Marc is getting at the hands of his readers today.

The Superbowl analogy was pitch perfect. The commenter calling Marc out on the "less than $20 million" figure was priceless (I caught that one too).

No amount of silliness can change the fact that Hillary is the frontrunner for the nomination. She is still the favorite. They have to know that self financing will be seen for what it is: a campaign that is in trouble.

Marc can float all the trial balloons he wants for the Clintons, but just because you have gone through millions and millions in your contributors' money does not give you license to call yourself the underdog. Imagine the pitch to new contributors:
I used all of my friends' money so I need some new friends. HELP ME!!

This is a devastating development, if true, especially as the economy has now eclipsed Iraq as the number one issue. It looks horrible for her to suddenly have to go into debt just to keep Obama at bay. So much for her 35 years of experience.

Well, the minute you hear that the Clintons have to spent their own money to not even match the money donated to the Obama campaign, I'd say you have a pretty clear answer about who really is the people's candidate. This news can only motivate the Obama base more strongly, because more small donations can simply grind down a campaign that has to basically evade the campaign finance laws, and has maxed out most of its donors. It also says which candidate would have a major fund-raising advantage for the general race against McCain. Plus, look at the scale of most of Obama's wins - massive at around 70 per cent of the vote. My bet is a string of impressive Obama wins in the next month, leaving Hillary financially bust and looking like a loser when we get to Texas and Ohio. Don't bet on the super-delegates being eager to support a campaign and a candidate that are running on fumes.

Raised less than $20 million? That's one way of looking at. A dishonest way.

The honest way: She raised just over $10 million.
(which 13.5 is much close too).

"Less than 20," Ha!

Raised less than $20 million? That's one way of looking at. A dishonest way.

The honest way: She raised just over $10 million.
(which 13.5 is much close too).

"Less than 20," Ha!

You guys have too much free time on your hands. Marc's not a shill for anyone. He's a little sloppy in his writing, but his observations are generally spot on.

Grow up.

Incredibly vile comments. It's what this "historic duo" contest has degenerated into.

1. Self-financing in any amount is allowable under campaign finance law.

2. Where do Obama's supporters think he got that $32 million in January. You think it came from 'folks donatin' $50 here $50 there.

Obama is the most heavily corporate funded candidate in either party.

Given Clinton's traditionally horrible treatment by mainstream media and treatment in the liberal blogosphere that appears eager to emulate the mainstream media in hypocrisy and Obama's heavy financial support from corporations, a case can be made for, at this stage, underdog status.

Why do I get the sense that any one of the commenters on this thread would be better at Marc Ambinder's job than Marc Ambiner?

Her 35 years experience of being married to Bill didn’t teach her how to balance her check book.. If she can’t control spending in her own campaign what makes anyone think she is equip to handle the nation’s finances. Horrible.

Lurker mostly here... I contributed $100 after New Hampshire to Mr. Obama and another $100 to his campaign after last night. For Ms. Clinton to even try and reposition herself as an underdog is so ridiculous, it should not even be debated and for her to try and buy her way to the presidency using Money from Bill is so pathetic it defies reality why so many women are supporting her claims to the feminist credo. And I say this as a woman....

To: Devil is In (February 6, 2008 2:15 PM)

In answer to your rant, may I suggest you look at the detailed position papers at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.

I'd be interested in your thoughts after you read each of these.

Best,

"I think it makes her look weak"

LOL! Wow I love reading posts like these, all the self loathing and Hillary demise and hate. It inspired me to send her another contribution when I just sent one this morning.

The media has amnesia. 2 weeks ago they said who ever won Calif would win super tuesday, would win the nom. Now that their boy, the god-like Obama didn't have such a good day, they are retracting.

All that Kennedy support from Massachusets, all that major campaigning these big names did for Obama in Calif.. how'd that work out for Obama in those BIG states where it really counts to win?

Obama is an arrogant empty suit who offers "change" and manages to always side step having to explain what exactly that is.

He can keep preaching on the trail, he can keep lying about the Clinton campaign, he can keep saying he gets the youth vote, but the numbers don't lie.

By the way, among youth voters, Hillary won that too in Calif.

Thanks though for the inspiration to donate again.

BJ...apt name for a Clinton supporter.

One thing I don't get is what is this proclaimed "35 years of experience"?

Since Obama's time as a lawyer, community organiser etc is discounted and they only seem to refer to his time is politics, surely the same should be for Billary?

As far as I noticed, she has only been a Senator a few years.

Why do people count her time as first lady as 'experience'? Surel, sitting sround while your husband is president and also having sex with everything that walks is not exactly political experience?

If so, why don't the GOP slap Laura Bush on the ballot?

Me - if the GOP put Laura Bush on the ballot, she would probably win.

Be careful what you ask for. :}

Me: The 35 years thing is bullshit. First Lady, Wal-Mart Board, Rose Law Firm. No Clinton supporter has ever explained to me how those count as "experience" when it comes to running the country. It's like many, many things having to do with the Clintons. It's simply duplicitous, dishonest, bullshit.

And Barack is sending out "match the Clintons" emails. They already have 3.7 mil.

February 6, 2008 2:25 PM

I went to www.barackobama.com and there is a sign that says "skip signup", clicked it and I was in.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

>He can keep preaching on the trail, he can keep lying about the Clinton campaign, he can keep saying he gets the youth vote, but the numbers don't lie.

Obama got 59% of the youth vote on Super Tuesday.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1581027/20080206/id_0.jhtml

Hey Devil is In, I'm not by any means an Obama supporter (I was an Edwards supporter leaning toward Hillary until, well, today) but you really are sounding pathetic here when you trash the Obama people. Obama gives inspiring speeches but he's had substance to match the style. While he hasn't been my first choice, he has real, sensible policy ideas.

If anything, it's the arrogance and ad hominem nature of Hillary supporters that is now pushing me into the Obama camp.

Oh, and actually, one thing that does raise hackles about this story-- Bill Clinton got tens of millions of dollars from that guy Ron Burkle, plus who knows how many millions more from that mining concern in Kazakhstan.

With personal money now being used to finance campaigns, there must now be scrutiny of where that money is coming from, to the Clintons. Campaign finance laws make it illegal-- with even jail time on the table-- for anyone who funnels personal gifts into a campaign, since this would be an obvious circumventing of campaign finance laws. Especially if this is with foreign money, it means a major scandal and prison time for Bill and Hillary Clinton, probably sharing a cell with an irate, dirt-poor cellmate who would love to get some "Clinton sugar" in there.

Thank GOD she has the money to do this.

SOON you will see and HEAR the experience that she has to lead our country out of the recession it's headed for, and also see how Obama has NOT a CLUE - but hope. Oh and let's not forget his "celebrity" contributors.

Listen and watch the debates. You will see and hear, if you listen.


How do loans to one's own campaign work? She writes a check for $5 million and then all future donations are funneled back to her? That is pretty lame, if true. She should put her money where he mouth is, just like I did today for the Obama campaign. This Clinton nonsense will continue into infinity.

I am quite concerned about the super delegate phenomenon and hope the Walter Mondales of the world follow the lead of the PEOPLE and not the ESTABLISHMENT.

In response to this Clinton loan story, a mailier went out from the Obama camapign. Since about 6:30pm Feb 06 the Obama campaign has raked in nearly $1,000,000 an hour via Internet donations.

More info One: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/181817/1441/131/451411

More infor Two: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/21551/00927/43/451515

DONATE NOW: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8374_Page2.html

In response to this Clinton loan story, a mailier went out from the Obama camapign. Since about 6:30pm Feb 06 the Obama campaign has raked in nearly $1,000,000 per HOUR via Internet donations.

More info One: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/181817/1441/131/451411

More infor Two: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/21551/00927/43/451515

DONATE NOW: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8374_Page2.html

remember when we were all debating Rudy's staffers going without pay. It was just before SC I think. Some comment ter tired to argue that wasn't a bad sign, just a sign that they were really devoted. I didn't buy that argument then and I don't buy any arguments that it is positive in any way that HRC is now spending her (their) own cash and her staffers sacrificing their salaries. It goes right along with the HRC memo last night explaining Georgia--we lost because we only had two offices versus BHO's nine offices. How they all run their campaigns does reflect on how they would run the country.

Didn't take long for the Obama camp to turn "Help Us Match Hillary!" into their own fundraiser, as predicted by readers above.

Thanks, Marc! ;-)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGGpp

Looks like they've exceeded $5 Million already.

Hot off the presses from the Clintons. No not the campaign, the Clintons the package deal you buy when you vote Clinton. Former Impeached, Disbarred president William Jefferson Clinton and his lovely like minded ever so nice wife Hillary. Yes YOU Can.

That's right folks yes you can keep the Clintons living the high life indefinitely. Yes YOU Can. Keep putting a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, clothes on their backs and dollars in their bank account to keep paying their health care bills.

Yes YOU Can. Yes, and not only that, but now they are also lending you YOUR money in the same ruse that the worst of criminal predatory lenders did in the oh wait, that is not history yet, that is current events. Yes you sheep. Who are these people who can not pay their housing loans, the ones who borrowed not only the principal but the interest and the down payment for the loan. How is it not obvious to you that this is exactly the same scam. The lender (yes, you know who that is) inflates your omnivorous imagination with some empty sales pitch about how you are such a hero and so smart and all you have to do is sign on the dotted line to lock in right now to ensure your success in life. Keeping up with the Jonses!

Yes YOU can.

What is it about grifters that keeps them alive?

Wake up you sheep. If the Clintons believed in this campaign, if the Clintons were willing to anything for the American people that did not result in direct financial gain for the Clintons,
the Clintons would be giving. Not LENDING. Giving
everything that they have because if their flock put them back into the white house, they are going to be taking down 20mill plus a year for the rest of their lives when they get out. Books speaking arrangements anything that they can do to help you for a big fat fee.

Get the picture? Wake up.

Does anyone know the $/MO burn rate of HRC's campaign ? Does it average $1 mil/MO, which probably suggests a current burn rate higher than $2 mil/MO. Bill should hit some more dictators for cash.

Does anyone know the $/MO burn rate of HRC's campaign ? Does it average $1 mil/MO, which probably suggests a current burn rate higher than $2 mil/MO. Bill should hit some more dictators for cash.

Does anyone know the $/MO burn rate of HRC's campaign ? Does it average $1 mil/MO, which probably suggests a current burn rate higher than $2 mil/MO. Bill should hit more dictators for cash.

"How can the frontrunner be tied for delegates and be nearly broke?"

Easy. One word - MISMANAGEMENT

A leader who is supposedly "Ready On Day One", should not be executing a strategy that spends more than he/she has.

Common sense says that's not a winning plan.

Since they're not Governors, the only way we can truly determine how either Hillary or Barack would perform as the "CEO of the US Economy" is by how they manage and execute their individual campaigns and campaign-finances.

Basically, these are mini-$100M+ corporations.

Based upon what we've seen here, then one can predict how Hillary plans to manage and lead...

-- Spend, Plan, Borrow, Spend, Borrow, Plan --

That's like READY, FIRE, AIM, then ask someone for more bullets.

Regardless of the Iraq War Vote, or Universal Healthcare, or any other issue, that kind of fiscal management is not the type of experience that I want on the resume of the next President of the United States.

Someone who can't even manage a budget.

IMHO, that's a quick way to bankrupt a nation.

The common-man/woman does not spend more than they have in the bank or "spend the rent money before the rent is due".

Period.

And before anyone starts talking about her being the "underdog" and forced to spend to "keep up" -- Hillary had assembled over $100 MILLION in her campaign warchest before the NH Primary..

It's not like somehow the remaining states after Super Tuesday just suddenly jumped onto the calendar.

That's just poor planning.

Frankly, she's getting out-campaigned and OUT-MANAGED.

It's funny... the candidate who supposedly didn't have enough experience has been able to assemble an impressive organization that has successfully competed with the incumbent nominee in every state in the nation... including concurrently during 22 states during Super Tuesday... and somehow found a way to leave "some in the tank" for upcoming events.

Again, whether or not you are for Hillary or Barack, I find that downright impressive.

Just something to think about...

As others have said, the Super Bowl analogy is absolutely perfect. No way Hillary Clinton can become the underdog (and how can she say that while at the same time pimping her "strong" and "important" wins in California, NY, and NJ?).

Isn't it odd that some of Clinton's staffers are going without pay, while she's still paying Mark Penn and his firm of lobbyists around $5 million for their services. Those lobbyists won't go without pay, no sir.

As for the loan, I can't help but question where the Clintons got that kind of money. I know they've both published books and they probably both get paid well for speaking engagements. But from what I'm reading their net worth is now between $40-60 MILLION, and they said they were flat broke from defending themselves against the Republican shenanigans (and getting contributions to pay their legal fees) when Bill left office seven years ago. How could they now have that much money? And how can someone with that much money possibly relate to normal people?

Now I'm starting to understand better why Hillary Clinton thinks raising the cap on salaries subject to Social Security taxes (the cap is currently something like $95,000, meaning that the vast majority of Americans pay SST on 100% of their annual salaries while those making more than $95K pay only up to the cap) would affect the "middle class." Most of the "middle class" people I know aren't making $95K per year, much less $125K or $200K. If Hillary Clinton thinks that's the "middle class," she is out of touch -- and given the ease with which she was able to "loan" money to her campaign, I'm starting to understand why. Now I can't help but wonder whether the campaign is paying Bill Clinton for his work on the campaign. It honestly would be interesting to know.

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Lets turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Yes, where is the money from....well just so you all know that the Clinton's (both) have a great deal of knowledge about "how to use the system".
The Toledo Blade (Toledo, OH) published an article Sunday, January 7, 2007 'Former presidents cost U.S. Taxpayers big bucks' By Benjamin Alexander-Blogh, Blade Staff Writer

All U.S. Citizens should pull this up and read it.
You will not BELIEVE what we the tax payers are paying for and how much...well of course Bill Clinton heads up the postpresidential expenses..
no surprise there for 2006 $1,124,500. BUT...
he REQUSTED AN ADDITIONAL $8,000 in additional funds for health insurance!!!!!! Can you believe it.... a multi millionaire sucking the U.S. tax payers who 41 million of us do not have health insurance because who can afford it without employer plans.

Everyone better wake up and see the Clinton's for who they are.

Has Hillary finally filed all the appropriate paperwork for her "loan" to her campaign? Or is this another financial transaction that she partially completed and again does not follow the rules?

According to some on-line research H. Clinton has had trouble in the past with her recent campaign and further back regarding finances.

Is this really the type of "unethical" leader that we want for our country? We have already been subjected to 8 years of that. And as much as I thought Bill was personable, etc. Facts have come to the surface about his administration as well.

Do we really need more of the same? BREAK THE CYCLE! And by all means start holding Hillary accountable.

Folks we cannot "go back" to what we had in the 90's with Bill. It just won't happen.

Hillary is harsh and abrasive. It is her way or the highway. She is a female George W. Bush running under the Democratic ticket. WAKE UP America!

Attention:

We the management of Mr Fredment Wonda. A private Loan lender and a corporate financier for real estate and any kinds of
business financing.We offer Loans to individuals,Firms and other cooperate bodies who are in need of financial help or
assistant at a reduced interest rate.Loan terms determinant,and Capital is based between the range of $1,000 and
above,Loan for developing business a competitive edge/business expansion.

We offer the following loans category:

* Auto Loans
* Payday Loan
* Student Loan
* Mortgage Loan
* Personal Loan
* Business Loan
* Bad credit Loan
* Home equity Loan
* Debt Consolidation Loan

Fill below if you are interested in our offer:

(1) Full Names..........................
(2) Contact/Mailing Address.............
(3) State/Country.......................
(4) Occupation.........................
(5) Age.................................
(6) Phone no.............................
(7)Amount needed as loan..................


Contact our loan officer Mr Fredment Wonda

Email:fredment_urgentloan@yahoo.com

Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin “Tony” Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Obama should be vetted and disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges — Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOUR NO JFK --
"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Nice to meet you.
I had a look at blog.
Please link to this site.
http://www.geocities.jp/yui_0_8/

chrqwbzx vaezhnrc nwmgejqso kbwh rmeydh tisrxhd wrfhqjp

chrqwbzx vaezhnrc nwmgejqso kbwh rmeydh tisrxhd wrfhqjp

LOAN OFFER HERE,APPLY NOW

Are you eager to secure funds for that dream project of yours?
Do you have a viable business but lack the necessary finances to get it off it’s feet?
Do you have ideas which worth millions but you lack the necessary capital to put your idea to test?
Have you been turned down by other lenders?
Do you desire a house but you lack enough cash to acquire it?
Do you want your dream car now and yet you can’t, just because of your financial status?
rodney ford lending firm is granting you the opportunity to actualize your dream.
If you are interested in obtaining a loan,kindly contact us through the below email address for your loan request:
rcdneyfordff@yahoo.com