War For Donors Heats Up Between Clinton And Obama; Barack Has "Light Touch," Top Donor Says
So I just got off the phone with a top Democratic donor, and he had some interesting things to say about the ways in which Barack Obama -- who obviously has far less of an established financial network than Hillary Clinton does -- is seeking to win over big money donors who might otherwise feel compelled to go with the former First Lady.
The Obama camp has a "light touch," which contrasts with the Clinton camp's somewhat more aggressive approach, this donor says.
According to this donor, Obama's fundraisers have been calling up established contributors and saying something along the lines of, "are you open to meeting with Obama?" or "Are you open to the idea of an Obama candidacy?"
"His people are being very respectful, very low key," this donor tells me. "The Hillary camp's message is, `I'm on my way to winning the nomination, line up with me.' Obama's is, `Hey, look, I'm the future, line up with me.' Obama's is more like, `Hey, we want you to be involved, not just to be an ATM machine.'"
The Times adds a bit more evidence today that the Clinton camp is being, shall we say, somewhat more heavy handed. "One Democratic operative, who has knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising operation in the Midwest, called donors in Chicago last week after Mr. Obama’s announcement, asking whether it would be foolhardy to sign onto the Clinton campaign if he was in the race," the paper says.
Lighter touch or no, Obama is quietly working to poach fundraising support that might otherwise commit to Clinton. He's hired Julianna Smoot, who helped raise money for the DSCC on Wall Street in 2006, and has sent fundraiser Jenny Yeager to oversee his fundraising in New York. Will it work? More here.
Clinton's primary campaign is based on inevitability. Her campaign isn't heavy handed so much as it's trying to create a particular aura.
Many businesses can tell you that with certain clients, the best way to win the contract is to raise your rates through the roof and tell them you'll see if you can work them in sometime eventually. Convince the client they need you more than you need them. Same thing with campaign donors.
January 20, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good read. Sounds like folks are making sure that both candidates are in the race and it is far too early for anyone to commit to a 'presumed' nominee.
Why are they referred to as Mrs. Clinton and Mr.Obama, rather than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in the article?
January 20, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If he doesn't, she's the nominee." Thankfully its Bob Kerrey saying that and I don't have much respect for him (war criminal; Lieberman supporter; Social Security privatization supporter). Otherwise, it would make me ill.
This "inevitability" of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee is going to make people cry. Who is going to save us? Not Barack Obama. You wait; those big money people don't think he has any chance of being elected president. The high profile Hollywood ones will give him money, sure, but the others must have another candidate that they'll hedge their bets with.
January 20, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think it's sad that our political system boils down to who can raise the most money. We should have public financing and mandatory free airtime. As long as I'm dreaming, we should change to a parliamentary system so that elections are only 2 months long instead of 2 years.
January 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York times ALWAYS does this. I think they exceptions is when the person is a doctor, then say Dr. Dean for example.
This was a question I remember brought up in 2004 and I found out the answer then. Since then I've noticed that it is the right one, this the style of the Times.
January 20, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and happen every 6-8 months when one party feels they have the momentary swing to capture the chamber.
January 20, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Rovian, wouldn't you say?
It's a big bet. This is, imo, the smackdown. Is it the voters or the contributors? Lieberman had a lot of money....
Edwards is positioned very nicely here.
And I have no dog in this fight. I've been voting for Clark in Kos straw polls, and don't like Hillary for president all that much. But there's no republican alternative, and I live in NYC, so I don't affect the nomination anyway.
The trouble with the pitch strategy you describe is that it's all or nothing. It makes sense if you use it multiple times. It's not so clear that it makes sense for one election.
January 20, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insight Magazine is reporting Hillary is doing a lot more than strong-arming donors. They claim she's trying to out Obama as a closet Muslim or former Muslim taught in a Wahhabi madrasa in Indonesia. The issue here being that he's disclosed none of this to the public before, and Americans aren't going to be voting for a Muslim in the White House. It would hurt him badly, if it turns out to be true.
Hillary's camp is vehemently denying any involvement here, calling it a "right-wing" conspiracy. There's a problem with that allegation. If it's a right-wing hit, wouldn't they have used that in the IL Senate race to keep Obama out of the Senate?
Stay tuned on this. Things could get very interesting, if Obama races ahead.
January 20, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, Herr, and one way to accomplish this is to ban all fund-raising while Congress is in session -- period! Congress members work about 3.5 days a week -- the rest of the time they're jetting off to their district to raise money. So, basically they're all moonlighting as fund-raisers and short-changing the voters. Banning fund-raising during sessions and forcing members to stay in Washington most of that time to actually work on the people's business would help. Folks, we could accomplish this -- we could force it on the party as part of ethics reform we want to see.
January 20, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only interesting thing here is how gullible you are. Read Obama's first book, an autobiography, for his written details on attending a Muslim school for two years, beginning at age 6. Also do some research and discover all by your little ole self that Wahhabi maddrassahs did not exist in Indonesia at that time.
Of course this is right wing....since when did truth stop these sorts of attacks? You must not have paid attention to the Illinois race since Obama was accused of pretty near everything by Keyes. This is more of the same.
You are trying to blame this off on Hillary? How very swift-boatish of you.
January 20, 2007 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion, and that's all it is, although somewhat eduacted, is that both Hillary and Obama are wasting their time and the donors' money.
The perfect '08 candidate should be populist, pro-worker, anti-war, protectionist, etc.
The Clinton name is too polarizing, and the right-wing smear machine will cut Obama's legs out before he can even get started.
I'm thinking Edwards, Gore, Richardson..some combination of that.
Edwards will have problems mainly with the anti-lawyer thing, Gore on trade (although much of that has been over-shadowed by his climate work), and Richardson on immigration.
Just my opinion..
January 21, 2007 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Clinton name is too polarizing, and the right-wing smear machine will cut Obama's legs out before he can even get started."
This is so silly.
You don't think the Right Wing Noise Machine will demonize Richardson or Vilsack or whoever once they get the nomination? Didn't GOP demonize Gore? Kerry? and turn them into polarizing candidates?
This idea that if only we can find a dream candidate the GOP willl leave him alone and not smear him is naive.
January 21, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on, stlounick. The one thing to add is that nobody made up these lies in 2004 because he was running against Alan Keyes, who had no shot of winning regardless.
January 21, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
St, you didn't read my post. I never expressed full belief in the story. It may be true -- it may not. What I said was that if it did turn out to be true -- it would hurt Obama. That is a fact. Any schools funded by the Saudis (including here in America) teach a radical version of Islam. Unless you visited them all personally, it's a stretch to say there weren't any in Indonesia. Again, the timing of this is questionable for a right-wing hit job. This is the time when you let Dems beat each other up and stay out of their races.
Wasn't the IL Senate race the one where the Dems dug up the GOP candidate's ex-wife claiming they went to a swingers party, even though she later admitted nothing actually happened there? Let's not pretend that both sides don't play for keeps. I condemn them both.
January 21, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "lawyer thing" is a legitimate criticism of Edwards. The fact is he destroyed the careers and lives of hard-working OB/GYN'S in NC with a string of high-profile cerebal palsy lawsuits. Edwards claimed they were guilty of malpractice and caused the cerebal palsy at delivery. He won most of his cases. National researchers have since disproven the scientific evidence Edwards presented, but Edwards has never admitted he was wrong, apologized to the men he destroyed, or offered to give back any of the small fortune he made. You're darn right the "lawyer thing" is going to hurt him.
January 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken.
I agree, there is no such thing as an unsmearable candidate, the perfect candidate, or everyone's dream candidate.
I just think that Hillary and Obama will likely get hit the hardest. I mean, they've already came out against Obama with both guns blazing, and they wrote the book(s) on Clinton-bashing.
I did also state that the other candidates will have a tough time as well.
Not to mention the fact that Gore actually won, and there is a decent chance that Kerry may have been cheated as well.
January 21, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The RNC would smear Jesus if he came down from Heaven and ran for President as a Dem. Get over that.
The RNC always plays the same game. Their two pronged strategy- pretend to be every that they don't do once they are in office (fiscally responsible, pro states rights, small government) while simultaneously attacking everything and everyone in sight. The question is not who will the RNC smear- they will smear everyone. This we know for sure. The difference is who do you like enough to fight for over the next 10 years. (because they will spend every minute attacking during the election and two terms if we are lucky enough to get them) I did it for Bill Clinton. I grit my teeth through all the dick jokes, suffered through the haircut on the Tarmac jokes, the cigar jokes (and still do!)
I will happily spend the next 10 years defending Barack Obama. I don't know if I feel the same for Hillary.
January 21, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post facts, not right-wing generated rumors. The Saudis didn't start funding these schools until AFTER Obama attended a Muslim school. I seem to recall that a Chicago newspaper got the scoop on Ryan's divorce papers....
You don't condemn both parties--you have restricted yourself to the Democratic Party. I know it's hard being in the GOP right now...I suggest working at reconstructing your party which will go even further down in 2008.
January 21, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
St, you're the one being naive here. I lived in AR when Clinton had to run for office every 2 years, and I know what the Clinton's are capable of, all the while maintaining plausible deniablity. My suspicions are based on a long track record -- not an isolated incident. You won't be invited to the poll booth with me, so don't speculate. It's safe to say i won't be pulling a lever for Hillary. I refer to my earlier post -- we need to move beyond the Bush's and Clintons. Dynasties are un-American.
January 21, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A long-track record where you believed the veracity of the the rumors generated by the Clinton's or the right wing? Just who's veracity are you challenging and who's track record are you touting? It is quite unclear.
The only dynasty that seems to be UN-American is backtoback Clinton presidency's not Bush dynasties. The GOP never raised Bush family dynasty as an issue when they elected 41's son as their candidate nor when they re-elected him. Hilary is a Rodham and only a Clinton by law...not familial dynasty at all.
What is coming across in your posts is a clear bias, based on Fox news reporting for the right-wing.
Your concerns seem to be artificially false given the ease with which the misconceptions can be corrected and verified without much probing if the person has an interest in facts and the truth.
So I would just like to re-iterate what a prior poster said, please limit your assertions to facts and not rumor mongering based on right wing talking points, even attributing the rumors to Hillary vs. the right-wing is a GOP talking point focus as well. i.e. kill two birds with one stone or dividing the house...whichever is most effective.
January 22, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not destroy the careers of Ob-Gyn's he simply made malpractice rates higher. The clinician can practice if he desires just like folks drive cars with lower collision and liability coverage. So what you are saying is simply untrue. Furthermore, he made it safer for the public not to have their bowels sucked down in a return spiget of a public pool, like that five year old child had happen to her, playing and sitting on the spout. They now have covers so known of us has to risk our personal safety in that manner.
Do you know what the incidence of cerebral palsy is due to birthing process techniques? While cerebral palsy is a group of disorders with common symptoms there are multiple causes. In the USA 70% of congenital cerebral palsy results from brain injury during intra-uterine development. 10% of children acquire cerebral palsy after birth from brain damage in the first few months/years of life and 20% of cases are diagnosed due to brain injury during the birthing process. Edwards case may have been among the latter 20%.
Edwards would not have presented scientific evidence as he lacks the expertise to do so. What he would have done is provide an scientific expert who would have given their opinion on the facts of the case based on scientific evidence and the causes of the cerebral palsy. Edwards has no reason to apologize, even if the scientific data the expert provided has been disproved, given that subsequent scientific evidence may demonstrate causes that were also still present in the case as the reason for the cerebral palsy. Again, cerebral palsy has a multi factorial set of risks for the disorders commonly associated with the term.
Edwards did his job, to represent his client interests with the best expert testimony available. As a lawyer he is duty-bound to adhere to those professional ethics when he takes a case and he owes no one an apology based on the cannons of law and the known scientific evidence and facts of testimony by a scientific expert at the time of trial.
January 22, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make good points, white -- if you view them from a technical perspective. Unless you're an MD who has been sued for malpractice, you may not be considering what a psychological burden these accusations have. Imagine one of your patients basically accusing you of causing their child to be scarred for life. You have to live not only with the accusation, but you also lose the case in court and all the fallout that comes with that. It is a devastating experience.
Yes, technically, the MD can still practice, but what price has he paid to pursue his dream of practicing medicine? It's hard to put a price on your reputation.
Edwards ruthless pursuit of these cases is troubling, given the facts as we know them today. Given much more qualified and experienced candidates in the race (with real executive experience) his background has too much baggage for me.
This is not to say his campaign is not sincere. He's appealing to the margins, but a candidate talking about hunger in a country suffering from an epidemic of obesity seems somewhat out of touch with where we need to go.
January 22, 2007 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it me or are the Hillary plants on this board a bit too obvious? Before you start cheering too loud, st, you would do well to study the Clinton governor's races in AR. They raised mud-slinging to an artform. Of course, none of the accusations could ever be traced back to Bill -- he was too smart for that.
You haven't addressed the logic of my argument. Why would the right come out against Obama now? The right despises Hillary. Why would they do anything that would help her campaign by cutting down Obama? I'm waiting for your brilliance to enlighten me.
January 22, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is you. The only thing obvious is your use of unsubstantiated rightwing talking points to perpetuate false rumors.
No one is cheering anything. I am asking for clarification and facts regarding your assertions. Your allegations are invalid based on the lack of factual evidence to support, which you even concede is the case above. You are engaging in nothing more than conjecture, innuendo and rumor.
I did not address what was unclear and unverifiable based on the facts. It is very clear that the right engages in fearmongering and that Obama is a creditible challenger to any GOP Presidential candidate. So why would they NOT come out against Obama now? They have been pilloring Hillary for the last 16 years and whenever the Bush administration errs Bill Clinton is still villified despite having left office 8 years ago. The fact is that the GOP is threaten by the candidacy of Obama and Hillary and the GOP track record of control of both the WH and Congress is abysmally poor and exceptionally intolerate of the civil rights of American citizens.
It is hard to enlighten minds which have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda of the rightwing, neocon GOP and evangelicals. Such individuals lack the critical thinking skills to engage in polemic discussions as they rely much more heavily on faith, speculation and hearsay so as not to have to engage their minds and address the challenges and issues the country faces. Reading is a mental sport too time consuming for them to engage in and multiple sources of information overwhelms their cognitive abilites as it requires too much analysis for them to decide anything knowing that it is far easier to simply rely on their faith, Limbaugh and Fox talking points
January 23, 2007 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are now shifting focus from your original asserions about Edwards 'lawyerly' techniques and need to apologize. Whatever the risk are to the MD, they were known when he acquired his medical license. As with all, health professionals, he has to know that he cannot take professional risks and liabilities personally. He is human and infallible. This is not about their reputation it is about the tragic consequences of his actions.
Do you say the same about Bush'; War on Terror and utterly incompetent prosecution of the Iraq war? How can any person's actions be described as ruthless based on unknown facts at the time of their acts? Puhleeze.
Edwards is a good candidate and he has no more baggage then that AWOL drunk in the WH who is responsible for thousands of men and women dying in the desert for his families oil cartel. His track record of failure before he became President did not keep him from being elected and Edwards 'baggage' pails in comparison. At least, he has demonstrated he is successful in his field of law and has compassion and concern for the common man. Far more than can be said for that silver spoon in the mouth ingrate occupying the WH presently.
O my...how irrational. You are just a talking point spewing machine..do you ever think for yourself?
The poor in this country suffer from obesity precisely because good nutrition is unaffordable for the poor. They eat fast foods high in saturated fats and sugars. The rest of the country is obese because they do not understand how to select food for nutritional value vs. dollars. So, they grab what is convenient, and unhealthy...mothers do not even cook for their children..fast food is all children get...when children in the country suffer from obesity it is due to the nurtritional choices adults make for them.
January 23, 2007 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just asked for a simple answer to a logical question, not an Castro-length speech. The fact that the speech's author cannot answer the question speaks for itself.
January 27, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink