Obama Asks Donors To Help Hillary Pay Off Her Debts
The Obama campaign is offering a major olive branch to Hillary Clinton and her supporters. On a conference call with his top fundraisers, Obama asked them to help raise money to retire Clinton's $10 million in debts to vendors -- bills that were racked up in the long primary campaign that in many cases involved attacks against himself.
There are multiple reasons why Obama would want to do this. By helping Clinton pay off her outstanding bills, he ingratiates himself with many of her top donors -- giving them a new incentive to raise money on his behalf. And the overall message of Democratic unity this projects will make Hillary's voters feel that much more welcome in his campaign.
One point of clarification: The Obama camp's help extends only to the vendor debts, but not the more than $10 million in personal debt from Hillary's own self-financing loans. Clinton herself has told her own donors that while she needs help paying off vendors, she is not asking for help paying off the money the campaign owes her personally.
That strikes me as a reasonable compromise for Obama's maxxed outs to give to Hillary. I think she should eat her personal loans like Romney did, but I see no big deal raising money to pay of vendors. (Even if that does include Wolfie and Mark Penn.)
June 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is on point here: I'm troubled (a little) by Obama's decision to opt out of public financing. I think it would have been just so dramatic to say to the American public that "I'm going to win this fight with the same public stringless funds that McCain has at his disposal." Can you imagine the reaction in the press to such a move? It could lock in the victory now. I know the counter arguments: 1. Obama never committed to taking public funds, 2. Obama's contributers are small fry, so they're not buying influence, they're expressing themselves as good citizens, 3. We really need to win this, and 200M-300M gives Obama the possibility to start forcing McCain to spend limited resources in states (Ga, In, Va, Alaska)that McCain figured he'd win easily. Nevertheless, it would have been cool.
June 24, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No f'ing way, to hell what the media thinks, they're in the tank for McCain anyway so they're always going to find fault in anything Obama does. At this point, I want Obama to win in November, at all costs.
June 24, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press would have called him an idiot for giving up such an obvious advantage. He would have been portrayed as not having the killer instinct and therefore not fit to be President.
Opting out was the easier hit to take.
June 24, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Plus - the whole point of public financing is to keep the corporations and special interests from unduly influencing the elction
1) Obama's money is all coming from individuals anyway
2) The corporations and special interests are unduly influencing the election anyway through 527s and their ownership of most of the media, so they need to be fought off as with as much firepower as possible.
I think the brújaja over Obama's "hit" on opting out is nonsense. I highly doubt that he'll lose a single vote because of it.
June 25, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would be really cool?
If this young man hadn't been ground up.
link (graphic)
Let's not forget what's at stake here, ok? These people must be defeated and removed from the levers of power.
The end.
June 25, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't mastered creating links...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/100306iraq.jpg
June 25, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What they said. Plus he would have had to make the public financing stretch a week or 2 longer and the RNC would put Obama at a disadvantage.
June 25, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this unifies the party but could care less if raises one thin dime.
June 24, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah me too. You certainly won't see any money from me, but I hope it gets paid off.
She could have stopped that run up of debt a loooong time before it got to where it was. Let her fuckin' pay it off.
June 25, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, what was she thinking, taking part in participatory Democracy. Why didn't she just give up when everyone told her too?
I'm starting to think that voting for McCain is the wiser choice because voting for Obama will just more encourage morons like you. And it's the morons on the street that worry me, not the big dog in the big house.
June 25, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead and vote for McCain. You won't see a tear role down my cheek if you do. I'm tired of seeing posters like you waffle and whine.
June 25, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I just had me a FISA and public financing waffle washed down with a "why are they being mean to Michelle" vintage whine, and here you're offering up a rather low-grade white whine as follow-up and patting yourself for no tears. But he who cries last cries loudest, I think it goes.
June 25, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Desidero used to be quite obnoxious towards Obama supporters during the primaries ..... as he is now ?
June 25, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally I was obnoxious to the obnoxious ones. As above, so below, like attracts like. All come one, Alchemy.
June 25, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton shouldn't have dropped out simply because others told her to do so. But the debt her campaign incurred is in no way Obama's responsibility, and arguably she should have dropped out sooner so as not to run up so much debt. She used her (and her husband's) personal wealth to keep her campaign afloat longer than any other candidate this side of Mitt Romney could have afforded to do. It's certainly her right to spend her fortune however she wishes, but she should do so knowing that it may indeed never be repaid.
More responsible financial management would have never run up such large debt, certainly after the realistic chance of winning the nomination had virtually disappeared.
Also, I find this distinction between "unpaid vendors" and her personal loans to her campaign meaningless. Money is fungible, so whatever excess is raised after paying off the vendors can repay the personal loans. Or if there is still some shortfall to the "unpaid vendors", then presumably Senator Clinton would ultimately make another personal loan to cover that, rather than leave the bills unpaid. So I see it is basically the same thing. Or am I missing something here?
June 25, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell do you care? You people are just out to score pissing points. The only campaigns that finish in the black are the winning ones. Its just a question of how far back they finished. Hillary finished one RCH back and out of $240 million or so raised, she owes something like $20 mill? That's 5%. I've never seen people worry about a candidate's campaign debts before, and now suddenly the so-called progressive blogosphere is populated with picayune fiduciary experts. It's just a bunch of hens at a pecking party, a spot of blood and they go to town. Money used to not be important to this crowd until Obama got his internet donations up, and now suddenly it's more important than actually coming up with policy you can follow. "My candidate raised more, he must be better, nyah nyah". That's an impressive contribution to world populist causes. There's Jesus and his 12 Bundlers headed off to the fundraiser by the lake.
June 25, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be better for the party as a whole if donors who might be convinced to help pay off Senator Clinton's debt would instead use that money to help the DNC or other candidates in down-ticket races. Some deep pockets will simply open wider to make up the difference, and I have no problem with that for people who want to help Clinton out.
But if at the margins money that might have gone to a House challenger goes to pay off Clinton's debt, that's unfortunate for the party.
Obviously people can, and will, donate to whatever political causes they like. And they're welcome to do so. Personally, however, I have little sympathy for a campaign that spends far beyond its means well past when it has lost any realistic chance at winning, then wants fund-raising help to pay off debts it could have chosen not to incur.
June 25, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
She should have dropped out when it became clear that she was not going to overtake Obama in the delegate count. That was after Wisconsin. Instead, she stayed in and racked up huge debts to attack the nominee and give the Republicans their talking points.
I won't give a dime to this "damsel in distress."
June 25, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll disagree to a point here: she certainly had every right to continue as long as she had the money and desire to do so. If Senator Clinton wants, like Mitt Romney did, to spend much of her wealth on her campaign, I have no problem with that. And she's also welcome to keep raising money for it from whomever she can convince to give her cash.
And I'll note I've not directly heard her asking Obama, or anyone else, for help in raising funds to pay off her debt, which is to her credit. This offer came from the Obama camp, and they, too, can ask donors to support whatever causes they like. The donors remain free to ignore or follow such requests as they see fit. I still believe that donors with excess cash might be better served now helping out other down-ticket Democrats or the DNC, but that's my opinion. Others may of course disagree.
June 25, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
One ought to think her inability to raise more money to continue her campaign because people refused to continue throwing good money away would be enough of a signal that it was time to pack it in. One would be mistaken.
June 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, John McCain was so far back in the polls and broke in December. He should have just given up. It's the American way.
June 25, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I can't say I disagree with you. And I really think that Obama's 200M will be, for the most part, an expression of the enthusiasm of the electorate rather than a bunch of bundlers trying to buy influence. But still, it would have been cool....
June 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it would be cool if the Rethugs didn't try to throw all those vile 527s out to contaminate the electorate but they are so I'm glad he didn't take public financing. I would have be more upset if he did because he would have fallen into RNC's trap.
June 24, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know who counts as a vendor? It would be disappointing if Obama were to pay off HRC's debts to say, Mark Penn or other senior campaign staff--they knew what they were getting into when they signed up and stood to gain a lot from victory. They backed the wrong horse, played dirty, and lost. Tough noogies.
June 24, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but they weren't working on commission.
June 25, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think any efforts by Obama will be more than repaid if Hillary does a good sell on her big-money supporters.
June 24, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't try to be gracious and reasonable, Aubie, they're holding a hen-pecking part, you're throwing off the thread. Go ahead, take a poke. Go re-read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" if you have trouble getting into the mood.
June 25, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, Ambinder finds the one donor -- either a former Clinton person or someone not inclined to help -- to say that Obama didn't put much effort into the request... that it was and off-hand and not overly persuasive.
How does he always manage to find the most negative, cynical person in a group?
June 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ambinder can be an ass sometimes. Obama has put in this donor call as much effort as Bill put in his "endorsement".
June 25, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to take out the qualifier "sometimes". Ambinder is all ASS!
June 25, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
*Touche*
June 25, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was being effing polite. :)
June 25, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ambinder can be an ass sometimes.
Yes, but those good moments are few and far between.
Speaking of skanky traditional media trolls, if you want to see what the highly questionable Ben Smith is like, he's got a long video discussion with Matt Cooper at www.bloggingheads.tv
June 25, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
the best comment i've seen about Mark Ambinder referred to him as "a giant, melting 12-year-old".
pretty much nails it.
June 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good move for party unity. This happens in almost every election. I'm just happy there is nothing about paying off her own debt--Bill and Hillary do not need the money.
John McCain Opposed Health Insurance For Children
June 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if her donors give to him and his donors help pay off her debt. She campaigns for Obama and repairs the damage she did. I can live with that.
I think what she did was horribly irresponsible (largest campaign debt. ever.) and in and of itself makes her unfit to be president but it is over and she won't be. The important thing is to put a Dem in the White House so sometimes a person just needs to move on and do what is practical. I will donate $10. Not enough to take away from what I would give Obama but something.
June 25, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think what she did was horribly irresponsible (largest campaign debt. ever.)"
I'm a recovered Hillary supporter, putting my shoulder to the wheel for Obama, and quite happy about it, but this kind of remark seems calculated to scrape fingenails on the blackboard. Do you know how arrogant and ahistorical you're being? Historically, candidates stay in it as long as they can raise money, and a little longer besides. There's nothing new about it but the debt -- but is Obama "irresponsible" to spend more than $200 million for the nomination? NO! He spent what contributors gave him, and had Clinton edged ahead, I have no doubt he would have gone into debt too. They're competitors, for God's sake. They're a little tougher than you or I, and they certainly don't spend their time worrying about the crap that was thrwon Hillary's way this campaign. It's over. You won. Shut up for once and let's beat McCain.
June 25, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
seriously. She lost in march, when her win in Texas and Ohio didn't bury obama in the delegate count. It is that simple. After that point, the odds of her winning were astronomically small. Call it whatever you need to call it, but it wasn't responsible.
March. Conceded in June. Forget the metaphors. Forget the Lanny Davis/Terry McCauliffe (w/e) spin. It wasn't "a basketball game in the last quarter". It wasn't "basically a dead heat". It was a ~100 delegate gap in a proportional representation contest. given the remainder of the states on the ticket, it was virtually impossible for her to win. The obama campaign had the temerity to say as much in Feb, but they were shouted down by Clinton and the media (who had every reason to keep the race going as it made for better Tv than obama/mccain).
And the ~20 million dollars her campaign owes. Just as irresponsible. She doubled down because it was a huge democratic fundamentals year and she lost. It was a gamble. We shouldn't feel the need to compensate her for it.
June 25, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the $20 million as insurance, Adam. If your candidate completely falls apart by August (which if the last week is any example seems likely), you'll be happy there's a strong Democrat there with a big following as backup.
$20 million - that's just over $1 per Hillary voter. Wonder what Edwards or Richardson's debt was? Per voter?
June 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you can hold your breath waiting for Obama to blow up and you can die of asphyxiation while you're waiting.
June 25, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'm not holding my breath - I'm sitting here chuckling having a gay ol' time. Beats Simpsons re-runs.
June 25, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's not insurance, that's gambling. and not texas hold 'em gambling, that's lottery jackpot gambling.
June 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Swift63 is right. Retiring part of Clinton's debt may not be the most exciting thing in the race right now. But making sarcastic comments about it won't endear Obama to Hillary's former supporters. I'm not one to believe we have to beg and plead and kow-tow to Hillary's former supporters, mind you. If they want to vote McCain then I won't beg otherwise. But OTOH, I'm going to personally avoid saying things that only open old wounds.
The primary was tough. It's over. And frankly if it weren't for good luck, it could have gone the other way. Therfore, it's time to be gracious and move on to working to insure John McCain is not elected President.
June 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy I'm just RUSHING to my wallet to send Hillary some money. Good thing I can send it in 2300 dollar increments. That is about 2% of what her husband can make on a single speech.
June 25, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is like being asked to help retire some dude's debt to a casino because he refused to cut his losses and walk away from the blackjack table when it was clear he was in over his head and unable to chase all his money back down. So instead he just kept doubling down and splitting hands and getting deeper into debt all the while insisting angrily that everyone's admonitions were nonsense and that he had every right to continue playing because he had some magical "strategy."
Okay, I'm referring to myself here. But at least I didn't ask anyone to bail me out! What? Stop judging me! I'm different now -- more responsible!
June 25, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless Obama was talking mainly to large donors, I don't see Clinton's debt getting retired by Obama donors. We still have to get him elected and there's only so much we smaller donors can do - we can't get him elected, foot the bill for the convention and pay off her debt.
I know it's traditional but I think it's weird. She blasted through the money without another thought, apparently. What I can't figure out is how they apportion the money between he and her debt - are donors going to be specific that way?
June 25, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
...between him and her debt.
Damn I'd love a preview feature.
June 25, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typically I just think about what I'm saying as I write it. Works like a charm.
June 25, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Desidero - maybe I'll try that sometime.
And good morning to you, too.
June 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buon giorno, ragazza, come stai? Va bene?
June 25, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si.
June 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of party unity I will be giving $2 to HRC campaign.Hopefully, if all Obama donors do that and if HRC is decent all the little people who are owed money by her campaign will get paid. It will still leave Penn and Wolfsohn short but that is the way it should be for those two sleeze balls.
I hope that others will also join me in taking the pledge not to support any Democratic candidate who hires those two.
June 25, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, to the nah!
Clintons made over $100 million dollars giving speeches over 7 years. Let them pay their own debts. She wouldn't have this problem if she wasn't such a self-consumed loon!
June 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama wouldn't need her to drum up support if his followers weren't such assholes. I guess they need each other.
June 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink