« Rep. Shadegg Changes Mind On Retirement, Will Run Again | Home | RNC Attacked Obama, Not Hillary, During The Debate »
NYT: Hillary Donors Upset With Campaign's Management
With Hillary Clinton's campaign going downhill, a lot of big donors are now expressing their discontent with the way the finances have been handled, from the high-paid political consultants to the ostentatious spending on luxury hotels.
Former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle came under particular scrutiny for some of the big spending, not only in the presidential race but in Hillary's easy 2006 re-election, which managed to spend $30 million without having a major opponent. "The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign," said one anonymous fundraiser, "but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history."
Advertisement
Mmm...but wait, wasn't she ready from Day One?
God, I'd LOVE to see how she'd handle the federal budget, or national security (oh wait, we already saw that when she voted for us to invade Iraq without reading the NIE first)..
February 22, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last night Hillary gave a long list of surprises that have taken place around the world, and was making the case that she is the one who is best equipped to handle any such surprise happenings in 2009.
Which leads to the question:
When is Hands On Hillary going to get surprised, and take charge of the prolonged dysfunctional conduct of her own campaign?
If things have been going to hell in a hand basket, for a long time, in her own campaign, and she has not recognized it, or failed to fix it, then would she recognize when an emergency arose, even if it bit her in the arse~
February 22, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
By any standard, Hillary's campaign has been a debacle. I think it's a fair yardstick to use when measuring her claim to being the best one to run this country. Obama's campaign, by contrast, has been run with military precision. His strategy and execution have been nearly flawless.
Hillary wants us to believe that she'd somehow be a better manager once she was in the White House than she's been while running her campaign. Her case is incredibly weak.
February 22, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still disagree. I think that Clinton has run a very good campaign. If she had been running against the field of competitors in 2004, for instance, I dare say she would be far out ahead right now. She has made no more obvious mistakes than any other ordinary candidate makes in the course of a primary. Unfortunately for her, she has been running against Obama, who is to democratic politics what Michael Jordan was to basketball. It is not that she has run a horrible campaign (as you claim) but rather that Obama has run a flawless campaign. Compared to him, she looks bad, but if you set her campaign against most other democratic primary contenders for the past three cycles, she would compare quite favorably.
February 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Clinton has run a very good campaign.
I've heard other people make this argument (notably Matt Yglesias), but I really don't see it. Given that, for example:
1. Clinton's campaign didn't just push the "inevitability" meme in 2007, they apparently believed it;
2. They depended upon big-buck $2,300 donors rather than broader, smaller-money supporters they could tap repeatedly;
3. Even on Feb. 5, the day they were counting on to end the race, the campaign was utterly AWOL from nearly half the states holding contests that day, allowing Obama to ring up blowouts in (and take huge delegate hauls out of) Illinois, Georgia, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, and Idaho;
4. They had no contingency plan for a race that continued beyond Feb. 5, leaving them defenseless against the February Obama avalanche that has all but decided the nomination;
5. They have openly advocated (a) seating the Michigan and Florida delegations so that Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead and (b) superdelegates voting to overturn an Obama electoral victory, despite the mortal wound either tactic would inflict on the party in November and beyond (not to mention the enormous flood of ill will that her advocacy of those measures has earned her this month); and
6. They have somehow squandered a bankroll of somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million dollars, and squandered it so completely that they were out of cash by late January (even though they had barely spent pennies organizing in half of the Feb. 5 states or in any of the subsequent ones, as pointed out in (3) and (4) above). That's a hell of a lot more money than any other Democratic primary candidate in history--except Obama--has ever had at his or her disposal.
I dunno; those six strike me as astounding, monumental errors--and there have been plenty of medium-sized and small mistakes piled on top of them. Obama's campaign has made some minor mistakes as well, but (it seems to me) nothing that is anywhere near as serious as any of the above.
So I'm just not buying the "Clinton has run a good campaign, but it was unlucky to be running against a juggernaut" bit. This race doesn't have to be all but over at this point, but--thanks mainly to blunders 3 and 4 above--it is.
February 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I held a share in HRC's campaign, I would demand an audit - by a reliable external auditor - Price Waterhouse, Ernst & Young maybe?
The fact that spending was out of control is really never an excuse - it is most always accompanied with fraud and reflects on the vision and direction provided by the CEO.
Would I hire someone that held a position of responsibility in that outfit? No!
February 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, that's a shock. I like the expenses for staying at the bellagio in vegas for the nevada caucuses. 25,000???? Were they staying in the penthouse?
I was wondering what happened to all the cash. BTW, I bet this is probably why she is out of cash with no more sources. She ran her campaign spending like a drunken sailor and she is going to lose. Why would anyone want to give her anymore cash?
February 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a donor, and I'm fine with it.
February 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's good to hear.
I, as an Obama supporter, think you should write to your campaign and tell them to give Mark Penn a raise. We love that guy! Also, tell them they should spend more of your money on donuts, parking, and swanky hotel rooms. If it's Mark Penn eating donuts, getting parking tickets, and staying in swanky hotel rooms, so much the better.
Could Clinton's campaign have made it this far without this kind of wise financial management? As if!
February 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it must have been that "experience" factor and ready to spend from day one culture that permeated the HRC campaign. Imagine if the fat cats are upset about her wasteful ways, she could hardly call herself the candidate of "change'.
Actually, I think the real story here is the arrogant attitude held by the Clinton Campaign, believing their own press releases and thinkning the money would continue to roll in regardless of results and how people's feelings might change. If HRC couldn't manage a presidential campaign effectively, how do you think she would have governed the largest fiscall mess of them all - our government?
February 22, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've seen the best run presidential campaign in history this election cycle, but it hasn't been Clinton's.
February 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In other notable expenditures during the lean month of January, Mrs. Clinton paid $275,000 to Sunrise Communications, a South Carolina firm that was supposed to turn out black voters for her and collected nearly $800,000 in total. She lost that state to Mr. Obama by a wide margin."
The truth is, Clinton is outsourcing paid "grass roots" support, and Obama has a volunteer army.
The question Democrats should be asking is which candidate has built a working machine to win the general, from the ground up?
It's Obama.
February 22, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really am wondering who in that campaign controls the checkbook. From the Ottumwa, Courier:
http://www.ktvotv3.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=94762
"OTTUMWA -- An Ottumwa business is demanding answers from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Back on New Years Eve, hundreds of people filled a room at the Hotel Ottumwa to see former president Bill Clinton. He was campaigning on behalf of his wife before the Iowa caucuses.
Even though the former president was a no-show, the campaign still had to pay for the event, but they haven't yet. The Hotel Ottumwa is sitting on an overdue bill for more than $9,000 dollars.
Hotel Owner, Tim Schwartz, said hotel management and campaign officials agreed that the Hotel Ottumwa would receive compensation for the big event that same night with a credit card. No credit card was given and the event, which was more than five weeks ago.
"The first fax was sent January 3 to the Clinton staff and there's been numerous contacts through fax and e-mail, subsequent to that without any response, no call back or response at all," Schwartz said....."
February 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My contacts inside the Clinton campaign say that the consultants, the candidate, and the spouse, have now faced the reality of defeat. Watch for a withdrawal on March 4 or March 5.
Anyone who contributes money to this candidate at this point does so out of love or sympathy. I fully expect that Hillary Clinton's finest moment in the campaign (and there have been precious few of them) will be in her last primary speech.
The prospect of an Obama presidency, so unlikely just two months ago, has become a thrilling and realistic prospect.
I remember my feelings of anger toward Richard Nixon promptly diappearing when he resigned. I look forward to having a wistful or at least neutral feeling toward the Clintons again.
February 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohhh, she can't handle her campaign. I would not hire her for my business, just liek I wouldn't hire George Bush to work my dog.
February 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those supporters who kept crowing about Hillary's effectiveness as a candidate based on her re-election in New York, this should be sobering. $30 million to win an essentially uncontested capaign.
The NYT article sums it up well: Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois."
Hillary has consistently shown terrrible judgment on finances, campaign strategy and tone, loyalty over competency, Bill, Iraq and Iran, healthcare reform in 1990s. She is not the person we need to lead the nation and the world.
February 22, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her campaign ended last night when she said something like (paraphrasing):
"...no matter what happens in this campaign, whoever wins the nomination, Senator Obama and I will be fine, just fine. We'll go home to our families, our spouses...and everything will be fine"
She was ostensibly comparing the comfortable existence families like the Clintons and Obamas enjoy to the hardship faced by so many Americans.
But in her remark I heard her acknowledging and reconciling her loss.
YMMV.
February 22, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...no matter what happens in this campaign, whoever wins the nomination, Senator Obama and I will be fine, just fine. We'll go home to our families, our spouses...and everything will be fine"
I think those remarks were her most unscripted, honest comments during her entire campaign. On many different levels, it's got to be hard fighting the strong possibility she's not going to win this nomination after all.
I found it very interesting last evening after the debate seeing her Communication Director Howard Wolfson reel off an email spinning his own candidate's words to make sure no one assumed she was throwing in the towel. Between him, Mark Penn and the Clintons' tenacity, I doubt we'll be hearing any concession speech anytime soon.
February 22, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, that she lifted that line from John Edwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo
She doesn't deserve the presidency. She deserves the best-supporting actress award.
February 22, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, that she lifted that line from John Edwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo
She doesn't deserve the presidency. She deserves the best-supporting actress award.
February 22, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, that she lifted that line from John Edwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo
She doesn't deserve the presidency. She deserves the best-supporting actress award.
February 22, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign is out spending the Hillary campaign 5 to 1.
Why won't Obama release his expenditures? Why is he waiting until after the Convention?
February 22, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because they're out-raising her campaign at that, if not bigger, margins, genius. Sheesh.
February 22, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why will he not reveal what his expenditures are until after the
convention? Must have something to hide. Sheesh, I guess you don't know why, so don't bother responding to that part.
February 22, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people are being a bit harsh on the Clinton campaign. Its not that the Clinton campaign is burning through cash but rather that they are forced to do so since the Obama campaign is outspending them by huge margins. If it were the other way around with Hillary Clinton winning and Obama losing, we would be analyzing why Obama was losing and I'm sure we would be saying that his campaign is paying huge amounts of money to consultants, which they are.
With respect to the current situation, I think it only looks like the Clintons are poor because Obama is raising an average of 1 to 2 million dollars a day and is thus able to outspend them by 5 to 1 margins.
February 22, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor corporate lobbyists. They won't get a good return on their investment in HillaryCo!
February 22, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Et tu Brutus,
Perhaps Obama is waiting for Mrs. Clinton to release her tax return info before releasing expenses.
Many others here have said what is the reality. The Obama campaign is a money generator while the Clinton campaign is a money shredder.
Yes David Axelrod is not cheap but he is pretty darn good. Mark Penn on the other hand is leaving a lot to be desired. Perhaps he is eating a lot of steak when he should really be cutting back and eating some well deserved crow if you know what I mean!
Penn, Wolfson, and Solis Doyle each have their share in the screw ups of Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Unfortunately Bill deserves some of the blame as well. The real sad point is that Bill's legacy probably dropped down a few notches because of this mess.
February 22, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is supposed to be leading by example. So what if Hillary doesn't release her tax returns, isn't that all the better for him to have full disclosure? He said he is the new politician, so what she does shouldn't matter.
February 23, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, what she does shouldn't matter just as you say that he should disclose his expenditures. Same argument eh?
February 23, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink