Matthew Yglesias (February 06, 2008) - Clinton Self-Financing (Domestic Policy)

Well, plenty of people have been feeling sorry for Britney Spears lately, and she's pretty damn loaded.

Posted by flippantangel | February 6, 2008 5:36 PM

After all, why would you donate money to someone much richer than yourself?

Er, because you want her to win, perhaps, and you realize she's not a billionaire?

Posted by Jasper | February 6, 2008 5:39 PM

tell me they will "feel sorry" for Clinton if she loses.

I shudder to admit it, but that's me. She's not horrible. I think it's a set of people in the Clinton machine that trouble at least some of us, not the candidate.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 6, 2008 5:40 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't really care?

They really don't have a choice, but it's likely going to further hurt their base of support even as it may well be the only thing that keeps them in the game.

People feel sorry for Britney Spears because she's very clearly fucked up, and for a good while too many of us had too much fun at her expense. When it seemed like she was just a spoiled brat, we were all fine with it. Now that it looks like she's a tragedy and probably has very real mental issues, we all feel very guilty. That kind of guilt converts to sympathy pretty easily. Especially when it doesn't really cost us anything.

Posted by soullite | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM

Pretty crazy news day. The latest Gallup poll looks like very good news for Clinton (we'll see if it dulls any of the presumed edge Obama has in the immediately upcoming contests), but the thing that strikes me most about this money story is that they cannot have wanted this to come out today -- can they? The day after Super Tuesday, when everyone's trying to hash out which candidate really won, and her campaign makes what amounts to a declaration of weakness -- one they didn't have to make today? Not a good sign.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 6, 2008 5:43 PM

It's almost as if the 'liberal' political party in the US is a plaything of the rich.

Posted by otto | February 6, 2008 5:48 PM

Did you catch the Quote of the day at your blog mate Andy's site:

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, 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," - Bill Clinton, December 24, 2007.

Posted by Eric k | February 6, 2008 5:49 PM

Based on my personal experiences talking with Clinton supporters, my understanding of the sentiment is that it simply isn't Obama's time yet, while HRC has been waiting for her chance for a very long time. Thus, according to this logic, the sympathy should to Clinton. She may not have too many chances at this if she loses. Obama is "cutting in line" so it wouldn't be a big deal for him.

Posted by MS | February 6, 2008 5:52 PM

That's the type of logic that leads one to nominate Bob Dole.

Posted by RW | February 6, 2008 5:56 PM

Obama's Iowa staff is setting up shop in Ohio this weekend and his S.C. staff is going to Texas. You have to wonder if she will be match full scale organizations in two large states while at the same time competing in the February primaries.

Posted by LeChuck | February 6, 2008 5:57 PM

Clinton's loan was about 4 or 5 times Obama's total net worth ...

It is unfortunate that this is a country ruled by the rich - for the rich. But if one looks at history, that's the case - and has been the case.

So it is usual that our leaders are wealthy - and the Clintons are merely usual politicians.

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 5:58 PM

MS,

Yeah, but it is funny how the Clinton's didn't seem to agree with that sentiment when it applied to a young democratic governor from Arkansas who had plenty of time to wait his turn...

I thought it was a BS argument then and it is BS argument now, no one is entitled to their "turn", this isn't kick ball at recess.

Picking the person whose turn it is results in Mondale, Humphries and so on.

Posted by Eric k | February 6, 2008 5:59 PM

I just posted about this too, which is what I and others were trying to explain to Matt last night. Given Obama's structural advantages in fundraising and the February schedule—as well as the incredibly positive press he continues to receive—Clinton needs to do something to arrest his momentum last night. Instead she vastly underperformed, losing both the state and the delegate count when no one really thought that was possible. Now the shoes start to drop, and this first one is a big one. I think it will become increasingly clear in the coming days that she doesn't have to resources to fight what's left of this campaign on Barack's terms the way he was able to win on hers. When we look back on it, we'll realize that Obama won the nomination yesterday.

Posted by G C | February 6, 2008 6:00 PM

One of your more bizarre little posts, Matt. "From where I sit, a multimillionaire US Senator has an okay life whether or not she gets elected president." The reason one would feel sorry for her if she loses has nothing to do with her economic well-being, but because she has worked very hard to be the first woman president, and has had to deal with the most irrational hostilities and resentments in modern political history, along with media, yourself included, uniformly biased against her, and astonishgly blatant misogyny. Also, Kerry at a critical moment in his campaign had to lend himself money as well (as has Romney, of course). It's not that uncommon. Nor is it uncommon - though you obviously haven't noticed - for Presidents to be wealthy. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, that Clinton is interested in public service despite being "wealthy."

Posted by Sheldon | February 6, 2008 6:01 PM

"Make Her Spend It ALL, Barack!"

Anyone know where I can get some bumper stickers printed??

Posted by Don Williams | February 6, 2008 6:02 PM

Damnit, botched my own link. I basically said it here, though -- it looks more and more like she can't compete until March, which is her first, best chance for a comeback.

Posted by G C | February 6, 2008 6:03 PM

MS, that is a very compelling line of argument to many women voters who helped support their husbands' careers or put some professional goals on hold while the kids grew up. After the kids left home, I've seen a lot of women put their career into overdrive, rising very quickly, professionally.

To many, Clinton looks like a woman who could have spent her early years building a political career but instead focused on nurturing her husband's. Now that her husband had his time in the sun and Chelsea is out of the house, she felt like it was "her turn" to focus on her political career.

But, yeah, this is similar to the logic that favored Bob Dole over Lamar! back in 1996, and that line of reasoning was... unwise.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 6:04 PM

One thing that isn't clear about the $5 million HRC loaned her campaign is whether that is counted in the $13.5 million she reportedly raised for January. Anyone know the answer to this?

Posted by McKingford | February 6, 2008 6:04 PM

You're not alone in questioning how the loan will effect individual donations to the Clinton campaign, but thankfully you don't seem to have the need to use the information as a means to an end of trying to dissuade your readers from deciding for themselves what this means.

Over at Andrew Sullivan's new site, "The Daily- Thinly-Veiled-Misogynistic-Anti-Hilary-Spitballs-on-my-Lips-Diatribe", he couldn't resist the hypocritically cheap-shot urge to yank on the chains of some of his readers of more moderate means. By throwing the fact that she's a millionaire in their faces, he seems to think all us poor libruls will automatically hate her if we haven't been convinced as of yet that she is evil incarnate. This from a guy who believes in rich people, and especially in their having more options in life, such as health care, than the rest of us.

Posted by ella | February 6, 2008 6:05 PM

And now apparently some of her senior staff are not taking a salary this month.

I don't feel sorry for HRC, but I also don't count her out by a long shot. Look at McCain.

Posted by evie | February 6, 2008 6:06 PM

Hillary has certainly worked very hard, and deals with some irrational hostilities. But - she really has had the enormous advantage of 100% name recognition. That's not the ONLY reason for her successful elections to the Senate, or her strong showing in the Democratic primaries ... but please do not ignore it. It's absolutely a major advantage. Just ask the Bush family.

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 6:12 PM

Here's an interesting graph showing net worth of the candidates. Hillary's not doing bad for herself. Of course she's no Mitt Romney.

Posted by recusancy | February 6, 2008 6:15 PM

the $5 million is in addition to the $13.5 million.

and ... if there's one thing anyone should have learned ...

never count out the Clintons.... ever.

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 6:19 PM

and has had to deal with the most irrational hostilities and resentments in modern political history

Those bastard anti-Iraq war s.o.b.'s.

While I think some of the sympathy is a function of the length of her effort to get to this position, I think of some it is a function of the fact that she was long a very sympathetic figure. During the Administration, she could play good cop, because it was Bill doing things some people didn't like. And there are reasons to believe that she was the good cop. She just doesn't seem like a terrible person.

But HRC is not sum total of an HRC Administration, formal and informal, and that's the problem.

And evie is right: don't count her out. Look at McCain. Or hearken all the way back to the morning of the New Hampshire primary, when she was sure to be swept away. I can understand why people think Obama is now, somehow, the frontrunner--I find myself thinking that way--but I think they're wrong. At most, it's tied.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 6, 2008 6:21 PM

...but the thing that strikes me most about this money story is that they cannot have wanted this to come out today -- can they?

I don't see that they had much choice. Halperin threw the question out there in the conference call, which was full of reporters who promptly reported that the question was asked and that Wolfson said he wasn't sure and would check. They could either admit it (which they did, and which strikes me as easily the best option), deny it (in which case they'd take some major flack when it came out that she did), or dodge the question. But the question was already out there, and dodging just prompts everyone to report that she refuses to answer which looks much the same as an admission.

One thing that isn't clear about the $5 million HRC loaned her campaign is whether that is counted in the $13.5 million she reportedly raised for January. Anyone know the answer to this?

The 5 million wasn't part of the 13.5 million.

Posted by jbryan | February 6, 2008 6:23 PM

A few points.

Hillary has taken a beating for taking money from people in different catagories than Obama: same people from the same lobbying companies but obama only takes it as individual donations and not pacs or whatever so she says with this action that she will put her own money on the line. And so her own money primes the well and reassures people that she is committed. It also establishes the point that with his money success lately, Hillary is the underdog now and it gets the message out. She gives herself five and challenges suppporters to give three. I bet it works. I think I'll will send some in the name of my ten year old daughter.

also I believe capped out donors who want to give more can help her retire this debt later after the campaign/election/transition/etc.

Businesses borrow money to cover diferent ventures or dry spells: these campaigns certain function as businesses. borrowing money is not ultimatically an indication of being unsound or shakey. My town has a very high rating and it borrows money.

Hillary made money by writing books that sold copies and made publishers want to publish them just as Obama has made money publishing.
they entered the white house quite modestly.
it's not dishonest money.

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 6:24 PM

What has she been spending her money on?

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | February 6, 2008 6:27 PM

I don't think a candidate lending herself/himself money would affect me either way. What would be offputting to me is excessive luxury in campaign expenses. It was reported that the Giuliani campaign was spending thousands of dollars for each hotel stay, and I can't imagine that wasn't off-putting for Giuliani supporters.

Posted by Anne E | February 6, 2008 6:32 PM

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/saloncom-presidential-candidates-net-worth/

a look at how much the candidates are worth. Billary isworth 32 million. Obama: 1.3 million. What it means and how relevant it is, I don't know.

But it seems absurd to compare Obama to the Clintons when it comes to personal finances, because its not even close. Thats not to say the the Obamas are in the poor house, but they're not "multi-millionaires" like the clintons.

Posted by freaktown | February 6, 2008 6:34 PM

From where I sit, a multimillionaire US Senator has an okay life whether or not she gets elected president.

This is the same logic that's always been used by men to prevent women from breaking the glass ceiling. "From where I sit, a midlevel corporate executive has an okay life whether or not she gets appointed CEO." "From where I sit, a highly paid corporate lawyer has an okay life whether or not she gets elected to the partnership."

The Old Boys Club continues to nurture its own, even if one of the Old Boys is black.

Posted by Al | February 6, 2008 6:35 PM

It is honest-enough money... Ronald Reagan pioneered the practice of paid appearances.

note:
Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million -- and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai -- by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle.
...
Now, as he negotiates with Yucaipa to withdraw from the relationship, he is a wealthy man, thanks partly to tens of millions of dollars he has earned making speeches around the world.
article

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 6:37 PM

What has she been spending her money on?

I wonder who footed the bill for that Hallmark bullshit the other night. Wasn't that essentially an ad?

Posted by tinisoli | February 6, 2008 6:39 PM

I just donated $50 because I'm sick of the Clinton bashing. Also, the longer there are two in the race, the higher the chance that they will at least voice support of progressive ideals.

Posted by mattsmom | February 6, 2008 6:40 PM

capped out donors who want to give more can help her retire this debt later after the campaign/election/transition/etc.
...
it's not dishonest money.

. . . for certain values of "is".

Posted by Glazo | February 6, 2008 6:47 PM

Now that we're up against Burkle and Dubai, I've just pushed another $50 Obama's way. Try it. It's easy and fun!

Posted by Colin | February 6, 2008 6:48 PM

It's pretty clear where the Clinton money comes from ... and it's fairly standard politician fare ... trading on name recognition ...

But ... really - where does McCain's money come from ?! He's been a senator for quite a long time ... I didn't think veterans' benefits were thaaat good.

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 6:51 PM

I wonder who footed the bill for that Hallmark bullshit the other night. Wasn't that essentially an ad?

She bought the time on Hallmark. Next question?

Posted by jbryan | February 6, 2008 6:55 PM

Isn't the more relevant question the rather blaring signs self-financing sends about the sustainability and competence behind a campaign?

"That rich person can take care of themselves" is a far less relevant reaction than "that candidate can't draw enough support to keep themselves going".

Posted by Starscream | February 6, 2008 6:56 PM

Michael C,
You don't see a difference in individual small donations and big money and pac donations? Really?

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | February 6, 2008 7:02 PM

But ... really - where does McCain's money come from ?!

I think it's his (second) wife's money, right?

Posted by Kolohe | February 6, 2008 7:08 PM

Great article on the power of the small donation at TPM :

great article

Obama has 26% of his money coming from donation less than $200 versus Clinton with 12% ...

Regardless of the difference between these two candidates ... raising money is a major key to running a campaign - and the source of that money will receive political attention.

I find it very hopeful that the Web is bringing more power to the people than was there just 10 years ago ...

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 7:08 PM

mattsmom writes: Also, the longer there are two in the race, the higher the chance that they will at least voice support of progressive ideals.

Actually, the longer there are two in the race, the higher the chance that they will start accusing each other of being terrorists who fail to keep halal. I'm not looking forward to it.

Posted by Ted | February 6, 2008 7:08 PM

"This is the same logic that's always been used by men to prevent women from breaking the glass ceiling. 'From where I sit, a midlevel corporate executive has an okay life whether or not she gets appointed CEO.'"

That is exactly what turns me off so much about the Clinton campaign. She acts like the government is a corporation, and now she's up for a promotion, and she expects her friends in the Democratic party to keep it "in house". But we're electing someone for the most powerful position in the free world. Just because she's next in line and she seems competent doesn't make her the best person for the job.

Posted by rr18 | February 6, 2008 7:12 PM

Add me to the list of those confused by this post.

Why would a person donate money to a millionaire? Because they want that person to win! It isn't freaking charity.

Why would a person feel sorry for Clinton if she loses? Because she's worked hard for this, and they have enough positive feelings toward her that they empathize with the potential disappointment.

The first has nothing to do with Clinton's well-being, and the second has nothing to do with her material well-being. And neither is connected with the other.

Sometimes, you have the oddest way of looking at things.

Posted by Royko | February 6, 2008 7:19 PM

Not, of course, that the Obamas are the wretched of the earth at this point, but they're not as loaded as the Clintons

Win or lose, Obama will one day be commanding unheard or (even by WJC) amounts from paid speaking engagements.

Posted by Shinyk | February 6, 2008 7:19 PM

So did the 5 million come from China, India, or Kazakhstan? I hope our future asian masters are kind to us....

Posted by Borat | February 6, 2008 7:22 PM

otto: It's almost as if the 'liberal' political party in the US is a plaything of the rich.

*Either* major political party is a plaything of the rich, except they usually aren't playing, per se. The Socialist Party hasn't been a serious contender since getting squished during WWI.

Al: [something about glass ceilings]

Matt was making a gender-neutral observation. When someone in the top 0.1% ponies up more money for their own campaign than the vast majority will have earned, borrowed, or spent in their entire lives, for many there's liable to be a hesitation to dash off another $100 check.

As an aside, if you're curious about who's writing those checks in your neck of the woods, plug your zip into this year's Fundrace at Huffingtonpost.

Posted by cmholm | February 6, 2008 7:24 PM

"[Not, of course, that the Obamas are the wretched of the earth at this point, but they're not as loaded as the Clintons]"

Careful there, Franz Fanon! I'm not supersensitive but that seems kind of obvious.

Posted by Michael's Mom | February 6, 2008 7:26 PM

Michael C,

You don't see a difference in individual small donations and big money and pac donations? Really?

Michael C isn't exactly the sharpest chainsaw in the Home Depot is he?

Posted by Jay | February 6, 2008 7:29 PM

So, basically, what is clear is that she spent 19.5 million in January and she's likely running on fumes. Which is why they are considering yet another loan to the campaign, to try to stay together until the March calendar which favors them.

It's obvious now, why they wanted the debates. Free media, she generally dominates, and it keeps her numbers up under a blizzard of ads.

The Obama campaign should take a page from Bush's campiagn: ignore, outspend, and then win. He's done 18 debates, he should agree to one in March before the primaries there and that is it.

He still looks fine.

She gets the oxygen sucked out.

That assumes, of course, that they don't have a succesful fundraiser online. They have the donate button very prominently and I don't doubt a lot of supporters will chip in now that they realize she needs the money.

This could be the blessing they need to regain parity in fund raising.

John Kerry's endorsement and fundraising/email list is probably looking REALLY good right now, lol.

Posted by Rhoda | February 6, 2008 7:40 PM

The Obama campaign just sent out an email using this story as a fundraising opportunity. "Clinton's asking her supporters for money! We must outraise her!!" The wild thing is, he's apparently raked in $3.6 million since the polls closed yesterday.

Posted by Steve V | February 6, 2008 7:41 PM

That's good analysis, Rhoda.

BTW, weren't you the neighbor on the Mary Tyler Moore show?

Posted by Sandy Brevard | February 6, 2008 7:48 PM

Matt, the problem is not that people won't donate to a candidate that can self finance, it's that it discourages them fro donating by making it seem like small donations don't matter since they can self finance(which Hillary really can't).

Posted by rtaycher1987 | February 6, 2008 7:50 PM

I admire and appreciate Hillary Clinton, and the more creep Yglesias sneers at her the more I will help her. Trying to help Obama by being a creep about Clinton is not the way, Yglesias.

Posted by Jennifer | February 6, 2008 7:58 PM

No doubt she'll appreciate your $5, Jennifer.

Posted by robert ethan | February 6, 2008 8:04 PM

... and Obama's take today is now apparently over $4 million. The way he's going today he could catch Ron Paul's Guy Fawkes Day total.

Posted by Steve V | February 6, 2008 8:05 PM

"I just donated $50 because I'm sick of the Clinton bashing. Also, the longer there are two in the race, the higher the chance that they will at least voice support of progressive ideals."

The Clinton bashing by Democrats is harmful for Democrats. Enough of all this disgusting garbage, Yglesias. You are making me more reluctant to ever vote for Obama if he wins.

Posted by Jennifer | February 6, 2008 8:07 PM

You are making me more reluctant to ever vote for Obama if he wins

Matt will undoubtedly change his tone now that you've put him on notice, Jennifer.

Chick Power!!

Posted by robert ethan | February 6, 2008 8:10 PM

The Clinton bashing by Democrats is harmful for Democrats. Enough of all this disgusting garbage, Yglesias. You are making me more reluctant to ever vote for Obama if he wins.
Posted by Jennifer | February 6, 2008 8:07 PM

Were you similarly discouraged in your support of Clinton when HRC and WJC were sending out surrogates to dogwhistle "Barack is black," "Barack is Muslim," and "Barack is a drug dealer?" Or are you only discouraged when what you term "disgusting garbage" is coming HRC's way?

Posted by Michael's Mom | February 6, 2008 8:13 PM

Obama's raised over $4.25 million today so far.

Posted by LeChuck | February 6, 2008 8:17 PM

Wonder how Clinton's doing with her call for $3 million.

Posted by Steve V | February 6, 2008 8:21 PM

Wonder how Clinton's doing with her call for $3 million.

My guess is that she's suckin hind tit (as we say here in Texas.)

Posted by Texas Pete | February 6, 2008 8:25 PM

Hillary should put out the call for $$ to her illegal immigrant and blue haired Grandma living on Social Security factions. No doubt they'll kick in some serious jack.

Posted by robert ethan | February 6, 2008 8:28 PM

"Why would a person feel sorry for Clinton if she loses? Because she's worked hard for this, and they have enough positive feelings toward her that they empathize with the potential disappointment."

If Americans really feel this level of empathy with politicians, something is very wrong with my country.

Posted by too many steves | February 6, 2008 8:29 PM

I wonder what the Clintons' net worth was when they were the Obamas' age, and when Bill was seeking the presidency. I don't think it's really apples-to-apples to compare their respective wealth as of today. I venture to say that the Obamas will be doing pretty well by themselves when they're in their early 60s.

Posted by Bemused | February 6, 2008 8:31 PM

I actually did find myself feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton today. Especially when they post those pictures of her looking down (and out) under the banner headline of her lending money to her campaign.

But then I thought some more about why she's having such a hard time right now. Assuming she is. Why is it that Obama had such a better ground game than she did in those 'untraditionally blue' states? She's been preparing for this run most of her life. How did she - so experienced in political strategy - get so outmaneuvered?

I think it's the reason people are voting for Obama. Clinton didn't/doesn't think beyond the traditional parameters. I see Obama's governing strategy in his campaign strategy. So if you're looking for someone who's going to look at the game a little differently, you're inclined to consider Obama.

Posted by Nancy | February 6, 2008 8:40 PM

I wonder what the Clintons' net worth was when they were the Obamas' age, and when Bill was seeking the presidency.

True, and it's apples/oranges for many reasons. Most of the Obamas' wealth came from the books, particularly the post-DNC reprint of Dreams From My Father. And unlike most candidate/pol books, it's actually non-ghosted and very good. You could imagine it showing up on high school curriculums, regardless of Obama's post-2004 career.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 6, 2008 8:43 PM

The possibility of electing Hillary to become the first woman President in US history seems less and less compelling to me, as something that has special value, or, even something that is historical. You see, one fact here is that the US finds itself in the new century quite behind the historical curve, when it comes to electing a female leader. So to do so now becomes historical only in an Ameri-centric context.

From Chile to Germany, and from New Zealand to Argentina, we find female leaders currently. And there are more. And as importantly, this wave started after World War II.

In addition, I also find it hard to work up any excitement for a Senator from New York, who is married to a former President, vying for the Presidency when between them they have already accumulated a substantial amount of power. And in the years ahead, I would expect HRC to become a very influential policy maker that future Presidents would have to answer to.

I'm a typical Obama supporter who voted for WJC twice, raised money for him, defended him, and still likes him. But my pathway on all of this makes a sharp turn at the prospect of him returning to the White House. I just don't see the case for it. In fact, that so many who once supported him now want him back strikes me as reactionary, and certainly not something I would want to be a part of.

The HRC campaign therefore is frankly starting to feel a bit Potemkin-Village like. Why the black hole in the financing? Why a candidate who cannot convert voters on the ground, after meeting them face to face? Why all the anger and nervousness from the husband? Something doesn't smell right here and I don't think you need a particularly keen sense of smell to get a whiff of it.

Posted by Gregor | February 6, 2008 8:55 PM

Judging from the posts around the web today, Clinton will see a definite boost in fundraising today. Not sure if it'll be Obama-level, but it seems like Clinton-supporters are rallying to her standard.

Then again, Obama seems to be making some money today too. We're at $4,671,000 and counting.

Posted by Kevin | February 6, 2008 9:00 PM

Let's not forget Hillary's record spending during her 2006 re-election campaign.

Not so for Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported sending a $6,585 check to Flutterbyes for flowers in Las Vegas, $5,397.50 to Le Petit Gourmet Catering in Glendale, Colo., and $80,000 to Tavern on the Green in Manhattan. Those were among the bills gleaned from a page-by-page review of Mrs. Clinton’s third-quarter campaign finance report, which showed disbursements of more than $8 million.
The chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Michael E. Toner, said only a handful of Senate candidates had ever spent more. The spending patterns of the Clinton campaign demonstrated “an extraordinary burn rate,” he said, which was particularly striking considering she did not seem to have a serious challenger in John Spencer, her Republican rival.

I don't feel sorry for her, at all. It's more evidence of poor judgment, if you ask me. Can we really afford a nominee whose main supporters are "under educated" (ie stupid), immigrants, and the elderly?

Posted by Just Karl | February 6, 2008 9:17 PM

I don't feel sorry for her. Maybe it's because I haven't had to put my career on hold for my husband. Maybe it's because I manage people at work and have 2 little kids and have to think about trying to be fair and honest and responsible in a world full of hypocricy and BS. Sometimes you reap what you sow. She got her break in politics on Bill's coattails (while other home grown women candidates in New York had to step aside for her) and it seemed to me she played plenty of hardball before South Carolina. If you want the power, you've got to accept responsibility too, especially if things don't go your way. So I can't feel sorry for her--she's an adult with plenty of power and influence and many ways she could have chosen to use them.

Posted by JMS | February 6, 2008 9:22 PM

To many, Clinton looks like a woman who could have spent her early years building a political career but instead focused on nurturing her husband's. Now...she felt like it was "her turn" to focus on her political career.

It may look like that to many, but they would be wrong. HRC would not be the frontrunner in a pres. campaign right now without having married Bill, etc. There certainly wouldn't be 100% name recognition from the get-go, for one thing. This isn't a slam on her, just most likely true. Without all the noteriety, the misogyny - real and imaginary, etc. etc. etc., she wouldn't have the rest, probably including the Senate seat. Again, I'm not saying she's not intelligent and hard-working, just that it's highly unlikely she would be where she is absent her marriage to bubba.

And I think some of you are a little hard on MY here. Being a rich, high-profile dem Senator from NY (a safe seat) during a Democratic ascendence is indeed not a bad life at all, from a creature comfort or political POV. The idea that anybody should feel sorry for her if she loses the nomination kind of makes me vomit in my mouth a little. Thanks for keeping something so staggeringly important as this decision trivial and celebrity-based, geese.

Posted by jonnybutter | February 6, 2008 9:28 PM

I just donated $50 because I'm sick of the Clinton bashing.

I just donated $50 because I'm sick of Obama taking the hit because people are sick of the Clinton bashing.

Posted by Lucy | February 6, 2008 9:33 PM

http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

Wowza!

Posted by Gus | February 6, 2008 9:34 PM

I think Clinton's going to be fine with money, none of this news suggests tht she's in a serious bind. Both democrats are going to continue to raise lots of money, it looks like Obama is going to be the new fundraising leader, but Clinton will have plenty of money to compete in all the major states.

My concern is the impact such a costly primary is going to have on general election fundraising.

Posted by JK | February 6, 2008 9:35 PM

It looks like Obama's gonna match that $5 million in just over 24 hours.

Posted by S. Pihlaja | February 6, 2008 9:36 PM

I think donating to a rich person is, unfortunately, more attractive than donating to a poor person. Huckabee may need the money more than Romney, but then again if Huck runs out of money he can't pony up his own to keep the campaign going. Romney on the other hand has shown he is perfectly willing to spend his own cash--with him I know my check is going to help the campaign but also that the run is not going to be stopped short by going broke. Everyone wants to make a difference with their contribution, but only two candidates (or one who finally wins) actually get a return on investment.

If it were a case of Hillary and Romney wanting the nomination but needing some encouragement to take out their own wallet, perhaps one would want to hold back. But it's clear they are not being stingy with their own funds. They'll go all out financially to win.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 6, 2008 9:39 PM

Nicely put, Lucy.

We're up to $4.95, which means something like a half million in the last 45 minutes.

Posted by Colin | February 6, 2008 9:41 PM

Just Karl,

It's not wise to disparage a voting bloc, especially when it's one you will soon need.

Looks like Obama will match Clinton's loan. At 7:30 (when I received my thank you email) the total is 4,810,684.

Posted by blindoedeath | February 6, 2008 9:41 PM

"I think Clinton's going to be fine with money, none of this news suggests tht she's in a serious bind. "

Ummm... what? I've basically seen 3 main fundraising stories:

1. Obama outraises Hillary 32-13 mil in January.
2. Hillary has to loan herself 5 mil.
3. Obama raises 5 mil in just under 24 hrs, and is well on pace to break the 30 mil mark for February

Oh, and a 4th: Clinton staffers are going the month w/o pay. I think ALL of this news suggests trouble.

Posted by Gus | February 6, 2008 9:43 PM

He got it: 5.12 mil at 9:45 ET.

Posted by Gus | February 6, 2008 9:46 PM

Jesus, Obama has raised $5.12 million today alone... and there's still lots of time left.

I think he's going to break Paul's record. This is crazy!

Posted by matthewcc | February 6, 2008 9:49 PM

There is some analysis among some old campaign watchers that the HRC campaign may have already spent the 5 million. The analysis suggests the campaign is actually in debt, and the 5 million was to knock the debt down. I'm not advocating this view, but, I did find it interesting in conjunction with top staffers going without pay.

I think the HRC campaign will not, in fact, recieve a new round of support from individual donors--and will take at least two more loans from Clinton Incorporated. I would not expect to hear about this again until after the fact. Obviously, everyone will be watching their ad buys.

Posted by Gregor | February 6, 2008 9:50 PM

From Chile to Germany, and from New Zealand to Argentina, we find female leaders currently. And there are more. And as importantly, this wave started after World War II.

I think that's a really great point Gregor.

The U.S. tends not to be at the forefront of progress...

I feel that though Hillary has worked very hard, her viability as a candidate, both for Senate and for President, has been really created by her 100% name recognition afforded by being Mrs. Clinton.

There's no disparagement intended - but, let's not pretend that she's self-made.

- and that $35 million Clinton net worth - doesn't include Mr. Clinton's coming $20 million deal from Burkle...

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 9:52 PM

Tme for the party leaders to tell Billary it is time to do the right thing for the party and the nation and withdraw from the race.

By all standards Billary, the inevitable juggernaut, has been crushed by the Obama insurgency.

With the Clinton name recognition and all their advantages, this is a repudiation of massive proportions. Stop the ego parade, cut your losses and chose party and the nation over your self deluded, self indulgent, self pitying arrogance.

And as for “Clinton/Obama..” Nice try from Terry McAuliffe-- corrupt hack thug extraordinaire.

Posted by darrek | February 6, 2008 9:56 PM

It's not wise to disparage a voting bloc, especially when it's one you will soon need.

Of course, you're right. I wouldn't expect Obama to ever say such a thing but it really needs to be pointed out that she's only getting the lemming vote. These people are voting for her because of who she is, not because of what she will do. Therefore, if she gets into office her mandate will be to do as she pleases. If the Presidency is owed her, then once she attains it, we're all square.

Posted by Just Karl | February 6, 2008 10:03 PM

Does this mean that Ron Burkle or Marc Rich or whatever other billionaires the Clintons have in their pockets can "pay" Bill Clinton $5 million for a business venture, and then the Clintons(plural) can donate $5 million to her campaign the next day?

Doesn't that seem like a rather transparent and flagrant abuse of campaign finance laws, since under no circumstances could any of those billionaires donate $5 million to the Hillary for President campaign.

Andrew

Posted by Andrew | February 6, 2008 10:07 PM

Indeed. Billary is once again holding up their INFLUENCE FOR SALE sign.

There must be a Woodward of our time to uncover enough of their brazen corruption to put an end to their excellent adventure.

Chinese cash contributions for influence is probably the most explosive since it resulted in a change in US policy toward an emerging competitive super power. Marc Rich was a mere cash for pardon scam.

And yes indeed, Hillary does have a lot of experience.

Posted by pluto | February 6, 2008 10:23 PM

These people are voting for her because of who she is

Yep, and that's what's strange about Clinton already being out of cash. She didn't need to spin money to introduce herself to the electorate, she had a built in voter bloc.
I suspect the money went to build a very expensive top down campaign that specialized in courting super delegates.
Oh, and how stupid was the Hallmark town hall meeting thing. No one was going to watch that other than her devout supporters.

Posted by blindoedeath | February 6, 2008 10:37 PM

Obama's site is down:
"Thanks for your overwhelming support. Our servers are a bit overwhelmed right now"

read: you are donating money faster than we can take it

lolz

Posted by MS | February 6, 2008 10:59 PM

I don't see why anyone would give money to a political candidate, unless it's the maximum amount and in expectation of a quid pro quo.

And, don't worry, Obama will be very rich himself soon enough.

He is, however, my choice of viable candidates to win the presidency, merely for his intelligence and the change in tone our country so desperately needs.

Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Posted by Michael Blaine | February 6, 2008 11:14 PM

The U.S. tends not to be at the forefront of progress...

Feminism arose primarily in Britain and the U.S., not Germany or Chile or Argentina or New Zealand, and I don't think having a female head of government tells you very much about the state of feminism or women's rights in a country. India and Pakistan are not exactly celebrated for their progressive treatment of women, but both have had female prime ministers.

Posted by Mixner | February 6, 2008 11:17 PM

I don't see why anyone would give money to a political candidate, unless it's the maximum amount and in expectation of a quid pro quo.

Really? Why is that? If you think donating 50 bucks to a candidate you like and want to see win is irrational - you are right. But by the same logic, so is voting. You waste valuable time and your vote is nothing but a drop in the bucket. So why vote unless you explicitly expect some favor in return?

Posted by MS | February 6, 2008 11:35 PM

Almost 5.9 million now, and about 25 hours since the polls closed in California.. insane. I see a new game of 'viral money donation' emerging :)

Posted by SL | February 6, 2008 11:41 PM

Mr. Blaine, a quick response:

So there's two types of political donations:
"You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", which to you seems to be the only type of donations you find viable. First of all, why will a presidential candidate respond to a $2300 donation with something specific? That won't cover Mark Penn's consulting firm's fees for ONE day ($4.3 million for his firm over the cycle).

Then there's the: "Hey, guess what? I want this candidate to win...because I think he/she is the best candidate for the job." A lot of Obama's money has come from people who give $25, $50, $100, $200, just a small amount of support, but with 100s of 1000s of them, it adds up very quickly. The goal is to help change the country, not line their own pockets down the line.

Posted by Mike | February 6, 2008 11:48 PM

India and Pakistan are not exactly celebrated for their progressive treatment of women, but both have had female prime ministers.

nice point Mixner ...

and remember that Bhutto became prime minister because of the renown of her husband ...

Posted by jackifus | February 6, 2008 11:58 PM

This parenthetical was dropped in by an Australian writer covering the primaries:

"... news has just come in that Clinton has put $5 mill of her own cash in (as a "loan") to her campaign, and staff are working for no salary (Bill, it should be noted, has earnt $40 million from speeches over the past few years. Working without pay is like running a garage sale for the Ceaucescus)."

I thought it was cute.

Posted by Macavity | February 7, 2008 12:07 AM

Once again to the rescue!! Hillary is the victim!!

Posted by Justin X | February 7, 2008 12:15 AM

remember that Bhutto became prime minister because of the renown of her husband ...

Her father, not her husband. She lost power and faced charges because of her husband (aka Mr. Ten Percent).

Posted by McKingford | February 7, 2008 12:19 AM

"She's been preparing for this run most of her life. How did she - so experienced in political strategy - get so outmaneuvered?

I think it's the reason people are voting for Obama. Clinton didn't/doesn't think beyond the traditional parameters."

@Nancy: Yes. She's still stuck in the 20th century. Like a lot of people, she doesn't appreciate how fundamentally the game has changed, even since the Clintons' last presidential campaign.

And to me, this is something the folks touting her experience should seriously consider, because as an environment changes, experience becomes less relevant. Buggy-whip makers, telegraph operators, and travel agents were all experts at one point, too.

Now, I'm not saying that all of her expertise is irrelevant -- that would be absurd -- but when an "inevitable" candidate with as many advantages as she started with finds herself first running this hard against a relative newcomer and then getting her behind whipped in a hugely important, measurable metric like contributions, it suggests she's missing something, and maybe not as "ready on Day One" as she keeps saying she is.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 12:27 AM

"She's been preparing for this run most of her life. How did she - so experienced in political strategy - get so outmaneuvered?

I think it's the reason people are voting for Obama. Clinton didn't/doesn't think beyond the traditional parameters."

@Nancy: Yes. She's still stuck in the 20th century. Like a lot of people, she doesn't appreciate how fundamentally the game has changed, even since the Clintons' last presidential campaign.

And to me, this is something the folks touting her experience should seriously consider, because as an environment changes, experience becomes less relevant. Buggy-whip makers, telegraph operators, and travel agents were all experts at one point, too.

Now, I'm not saying that all of her expertise is irrelevant -- that would be absurd -- but when an "inevitable" candidate with as many advantages as she started with finds herself first running this hard against a relative newcomer and then getting her behind whipped in a hugely important, measurable metric like contributions, it suggests she's missing something, and maybe not as "ready on Day One" as she keeps saying she is.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 12:32 AM

I don't buy this -- Clinton is simply managing expectations again. She knows every primary from here on out will produce a virtual tie, so the "winner" will be the candidate who seems to come in as the "underdog" but still manages to scrap out the tie. It's masterful and Obama and press are walking right into it again.

Posted by anon | February 7, 2008 12:32 AM

@anon: Possible, but awfully convoluted. I don't think "win narrowly, and then start dipping into your own money" is anyone's favored strategy.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 12:41 AM

anon: Not every primary will be a tie. The three this saturday could easily all be double didgits for Obama. Borrowing 5 mil from yourself and having the other side raise that amount in a day is terrible press, no other way of looking at it.

Posted by Gus | February 7, 2008 12:46 AM

@ anon:

I don't buy this is all some clever plan.

I watched the video of the press conference where she admitted the $5 million loan. Clinton spoke for the first few minutes about the great victory her campaign experienced the night before (Super Tuesday). Granted, she must be exhausted, she's losing her voice. But the look on her face the entire time was not one of victory or of someone unspooling some clever plan. I saw someone who never saw this coming. And when I thought about how long she must have planned for this and how much she must want it, I felt sorry for her.

Posted by Nancy | February 7, 2008 1:10 AM

And when I thought about how long she must have planned for this and how much she must want it, I felt sorry for her.

Well, there you have it. Has it occurred to you that that's the engineered emotional response? Vote away, baby!

Posted by dudechik | February 7, 2008 1:40 AM

thanks for the correction McKingford -
appreciated.

Posted by jackifus | February 7, 2008 2:21 AM

Hillary raised over 3 mil today, and probably will raise over 3 mil tomorrow. Don't worry. Both candidates will have plenty of money. Hell, Obama spent 35 mil in Iowa alone.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 2:33 AM

John Petty: "Hillary raised over 3 mil today, and probably will raise over 3 mil tomorrow."

Quite possible. But 6 M - 5 M = 1 M net. Whereas Obama has 6.534 M$ (500K between midnight and 3 am) of fresh money and no debt.

Posted by ClaudeB | February 7, 2008 3:03 AM

Nancy

I would feel sorry for the Country if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. He is going to be an easy target for the Republicans, and they know it. At his news conference, he stated that he has no doubt that he can get the Clinton supporters. He's been vetted by her campaign. What a pompous statement! Most of the attacks have been against Hillary, and she's taken the hits. He hasn't seen anything yet.

Posted by EWard | February 7, 2008 3:27 AM

And when I thought about how long she must have planned for this and how much she must want it, I felt sorry for her.

Really? From my perspective, the fact that someone wants power so badly and has been planning to acquire it for such a long time raises big red flags about the extent to which I trust them with that power.

(For whatever it's worth, I don't intend to make any comparison with Obama. There's a degree of hubris inherent in the act of running for president. It's something voters should probably wind up shrugging off, as far as all candidates are concerned.)

Posted by ML | February 7, 2008 3:40 AM

"I would feel sorry for the Country if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. He is going to be an easy target for the Republicans, and they know it. At his news conference, he stated that he has no doubt that he can get the Clinton supporters. He's been vetted by her campaign. What a pompous statement! Most of the attacks have been against Hillary, and she's taken the hits. He hasn't seen anything yet.

Posted by EWard | February 7, 2008 3:27 AM"

Clinton has been running on the idea that she can put up with the Republican attacks and has been vetted. It is based on the idea that she has been vetted. However, if she loses a primary in which the gloves came off via race-baiting, that suggests she doesn't know how to do what her candidacy is based on: her ability to win. If her own party ends up finding his tactics distasteful, it shows she 1) will have a much more limited ability to appeal to the center when governing even if she governs there, thus limiting her ability to get things done by having enough Senators willing to follow her and 2) would have been an easy target in 2012 as people would grow tired of her. (If the Republicans had a rare sanity moment and nominated a Christine Todd Whitman centrist, they would probably clean up against her.)

Posted by Reality Man | February 7, 2008 4:09 AM

The loan to herself is just part of it. She's becoming more and more clearly a candidate of insider advantages and nothing more: the sort of person the Taft family regularly runs for high office.

Posted by otto | February 7, 2008 5:18 AM

Nancy, don't feel sorry for HRC! This is exactly how she managed to eke out a victory in New Hampshire:voters(mostly female, I'm sorry to say!) thought the media and Obama and Edwards were ganging up on the poor little woman. I don't mind being disliked, but pitied by anyone:I couldn't bear it! HRC can't have it both ways: as the first serious woman candidate for President, she has to be twice as strong and three times as fearless as the males running against her(think Margaret Thatcher). I do think she tought this would be a cakewalk, and it's turned into a dogfight. I have a sick suspicion she will win the nomination in the end, but I don't think it will be worth much. The race-baiting via surrogates and Bill Clinton's behavior have been loathesome, and I know I am one of many Democratic voters who will never vote for her in the fall. Probably that's an easy decision for me because I live in NYC, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night.

Posted by bougie | February 7, 2008 5:56 AM

Of late, democrats pick prez candidates with no charisma and little emotional appeal.

But the excitement of Obama's supporters, and their willingness to spend, is a sure sign that they have hope and excitement.

Which means of course that Obama's supporters are all crazy dreamers, and therefore, the best candidate is Clinton (BTW not the charismatic one).

This is the thinking strain of many Democrats. Is it really shocking that they only win elections when the other side stinks, and that Dems can't get their legislative ideas passed?

Posted by jvoe | February 7, 2008 6:17 AM

Thanks for all the insightful comments. They and Matt's post have convinced me to go support a centrist (despite my socialist leanings). Hillary, I hope you appreciate my donation.

Posted by Expat_UK | February 7, 2008 6:25 AM

According to Taylor Marsh, Clinton fundraising has suddenly spiked in the last 24 hours. Maybe people are just sick of the insults of the Obama supporters. I know that I am. It really is going to make it difficult to vote for him in November. I have never seen a campaign that had so many supporters who became vicious if you disagree with their choice.

Frankly, it's reminding me of the way that neocons react when you dare to disagree with them.

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 7:11 AM

I can't tell the difference between a candidate's husband race-baiting and some meanies making fun of me in the comments section of a blog.

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 7:36 AM

Let's not pretend that Hillary Clinton is ot going to win the nomination. This is just a ploy to get money. By the end of the day she raised 3 million dollars. That isn't bad. I want to say that comments on blogs are always representative of a candidate supporters. Many democrats like both candidates.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 7:39 AM

And another thing...all you men out these need to remember that Hillary represents Woman Power. It's the next wave and will bring the downfall of men after many centuries of domination of the Sisterhood. Our day has arrived!

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 7:40 AM

My Mea Culpa,

I live in Boston, and yesterday I proudly voted for Senator Obama. I am what you would consider the incarnation of the typical Obama voter: white male, with an income close to 100K per year and highly educated. After I voted for Obama, I was sure that the Senator was going to carry the state. He was endorsed by the beloved figure of Caroline Kennedy. He had Senator Ted Kennedy’s, John Kerry’s, and Governor Deval’s mailing lists and their well-oiled electoral machines. To top all these political power houses, Senator Obama was endorsed by the major newspapers in Massachusetts, had an impressive line up of Hollywood and television starts and political dynasties surrounding him, vouching for him, organizing for him, mobilizing for him, and speaking on his behalf. The wind was in his sails, he was soaring in the polls, some even put him ahead by as many as eight points; there was no way for him to lose. This state was washed in the Obamamania; it was no longer Massachusetts, it became Obamachusetts. There was no way for the outspent, out-endorsed and less-liked Senator Clinton to win. She was boomed. And yet, as the night unfolded, I watched in total bewilderment my state gives Senator Clinton a victory that had the taste and the feel of Greek tragedy.

I went from shocked and surprised to reflective and even admirative. The more I thought about this woman, the more my respect grew for her; and how can you not respect this woman who has withstood all the attacks from every political pundits, news outlets, newspapers, and the leaders of her own party? She stood up strong to the right and now she is standing up strong to the left wing of her own party. She was ridiculed by Carl Bernstein who made fun of her thick ankles; she was humiliated by a simple minded man who urged her to iron his shirt; she was called a witch and the word that rimes with that but means a lewd woman; there were t-shits made with slogans such as “how do we beat the bitch?” or “If only Hillary married O.J”; and then there was the Senator Clinton Nutcracker sold in airport gift shops, Wall Marts and Dollar stores.

This woman took one low blow after another to her dignity, to her religious faith, to her character, to her commitment and to her political and social belief. Political pundits unfairly questioned her commitment to women’s rights, civil rights, and human rights. They told us over the months that she is divisive; she is polarizing and she cannot relate to the youth of American. They told her that she incarnates the past, the old ways, and not in so many words, they told us that she incarnates the evil ways. She has been vilified, and called a whore, not with such a succinct manner but with the same murderous meaning. Yet, last night, she proved them wrong, she proved us wrong.

How can you not admire such a woman who has been so mistreated? How can you not respect a woman who has taken one body blow after another? Every time we think that she over, she comes back stronger. Every time she is given for dead, she rises up more alive. Every time we think she has been flatten on the ground, she stands up, dusts herself off, regroups and keeps on going, without ever saying a word or complaining. She does not apologize; and yet you feel that she is regretful. She does not whine because I think she believes that whining is for losers. Last night she made a believer out of me and she has my vote.

— Posted by R.A.A

Posted by Anonymous | February 7, 2008 7:58 AM

Nice plant of an obvious Clinton supporter. Hillary blows!

Posted by Joe | February 7, 2008 8:13 AM

I am endlessly fascinated by the evolution of the conventional wisdom with respect to the Democrat's proportional allocation scheme. Specifically, it appears to me many people have yet to really grasp its strategic implications.

In particular, originally, and still a bit today, many commentators seemed to have a hard time grasping that in the absence of a winner-take-all system, narrow wins in big states will not translate into significant delegate advantages. As an aside, a dead giveway of people who are still stuck in a winner-take-all mentality is the use of the phrase "delegate rich", as in "X won in the delegate rich state of Y" (this sort of talk falsely implies that the many delegates associated with the state are going to be awarded to the nominal "winner" of the state).

Gradually this old winner-take-all conventional wisdom has been replaced by a new and yet also misleading conventional wisdom, which is that proportional allocation means that states are bound to end up near ties from a delegate perspective. The truth is a bit more complicated: the actual implication is a threshhold effect, wherein winning candidates have to meet a certain threshhold in a district (or statewide in a small state) before they can gain a significant advantage. As has often been noted, this threshhold can be as low as 50%+1 in odd districts, but it is true that overall the threshhold for coming out of a state with a big advantage is going to be significantly higher than 50%, particular in bigger states.

But conversely, if you do meet the relevant threshholds, as the winning candidate you can get a significant delegate advantage. This in a nutshell is how Obama pulled off what appears to be a delegate win on Super Tuesday: although Clinton was winning the "delegate rich" states, Obama was meeting the threshhold for a significant delegate advantage in his smaller states (and some of his "smaller" states were still a decent size, like Illinois, Georgia, or Minnesota), and cumulatively that gave him the advantage.

All this has some serious implications going forward that very few commentators seem to have grasped. Some commentators are still stuck in tbe original mode and are focusing on the big states to the exclusion of the "smaller" states (again many of which are pretty decent in size). But others are equally misleadingly assuming it will be impossible for anyone to build up a notable lead in pledged delegates if both candidates are winning some states. That is actually not true: as noted, it is a question of whether anyone can meet the relevant threshholds in the states they win. And if one candidate does a better job of meeting those threshholds in their best states, that candidate could indeed seize a significant advantage in pledged delegates.

In the end all this will become clear as the delegate counts mount, and I personally believe we are past the stage where the commentary really matters much to the outcome. But for now at least, it seems to me a lot of the commentary is still based on erroneous strategic assumptions.

Posted by DTM | February 7, 2008 8:27 AM

Every time we think that she over, she comes back stronger. Every time she is given for dead, she rises up more alive. Every time we think she has been flatten on the ground, she stands up, dusts herself off, regroups and keeps on going, without ever saying a word or complaining.

Listen! And understand! Hillary Clinton is out there. She can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And she absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Posted by Kyle Reese | February 7, 2008 8:43 AM

It's a good thing, not a bad thing, that Clinton is interested in public service despite being "wealthy."

Dude, being in high public office is a great way to *get* wealthy. It's rarely a financial sacrifice unless you've got some other super-lucrative career aside from politics, which the Clintons didn't.

Posted by Ryan | February 7, 2008 9:02 AM

Re "And yet, as the night unfolded, I watched in total bewilderment my state gives Senator Clinton a victory that had the taste and the feel of Greek tragedy."
-----------
Yeah --MEDEA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_%28play%29#Plot

Posted by Don Williams | February 7, 2008 9:27 AM

Reality Man

I agree with you that Hillary is not fully vetted. However, Obama comes across as owning the nomination. He appears to have multiple personas. At the last debate, he was a real gentleman. But, at the news conference, his words sounded arrogant.

Posted by EWard | February 7, 2008 9:37 AM

Oh, great, two Susans on the same blog. Wheeee!

Posted by Susan 2 | February 7, 2008 9:43 AM

There's no way I'd donate to a campaign if a candidate funded it by a LOAN. That means the candidate is expecting to get the money back and put it in her/his bank account and this raises far more significant ethical problems than donations going directly to the campaign.

Posted by Sue | February 7, 2008 9:46 AM

I suspect Hillary's supporters should be able to keep her in the game, if not she can do like mittens and run her campaign from the family fortune.

The real issue, the one Hillary glibly dismisses when it's mentioned, is why did she fill her coffer with big money quid pro quo donations?

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 7, 2008 10:13 AM

Hillary is cutting in line?? She's not ENTITLED to anything. They said the same thing about JFK and RFK, "Wait your turn." No one has heard that more than African Americans!! Not to mention, Hillary had 8 years in the White House. I may have agreed with them on many policies, but Bill was a disgrace- disbarred and impeached. Personally, I don't want him soiling any intern's dress or the Oval Office again. How he can even show his face is beyond me. Barack Obama brings intelligence, class, sophistication, energy and optimism. AND he can beat John McCain, which Hillary can not. To me, voting for Hillary is like voting for George W. Bush's 2nd term. How could we have been so stupid?

Posted by Patty | February 7, 2008 10:13 AM

Barack Obama is cutting in line?? Hillary Clinton is not ENTITLED to ANYTHING! They said the same thing about JFK and RFK: "Wait your turn." No one has heard that more than Afican-Americans!! And Hillary had 8 years in the White House. I don't want Bill back soiling any intern's dress or the Oval Office. I agreed with many of his policies, but he was a disgrace-disbarred and impeached. How he can show his face is beyond me. Barack Obama brings intelligence, class, sophistication, energy and optimism. AND he can beat John McCain. Hillary can not. To me, voting for Hillary is like voting for George W. Bush's 2nd term! How could we have been so stupid??

Posted by Pat | February 7, 2008 10:19 AM

Yeah, but it is funny how the Clinton's didn't seem to agree with that sentiment when it applied to a young democratic governor from Arkansas who had plenty of time to wait his turn...

Also, taken in light of HRC's '35 years of experience' claim, she's already had her turn.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 7, 2008 10:44 AM

This does vindicate, I think, Newt Gingrich's longstanding view that we don't spend too much on campaign--if anything, we spend too little. The idea that $5 million is a lot to put into a campaign to determine the future of the country (equal time for Obama's side: they raised $6M in the last couple of days), doesn't make sense. Same for a billion dollars, really. The proportion of money spent on advertising is lower for politics (where the value of the product can be measured by discretionary government budgets, even though that's only a small part of the importance of having this vs. that person in office) than for any other product except B2B stuff like a ton of ball bearings.

Posted by Rich | February 7, 2008 11:12 AM

"This does vindicate, I think, Newt Gingrich's longstanding view that we don't spend too much on campaign--if anything, we spend too little. The idea that $5 million is a lot to put into a campaign to determine the future of the country (equal time for Obama's side: they raised $6M in the last couple of days), doesn't make sense. Same for a billion dollars, really. The proportion of money spent on advertising is lower for politics (where the value of the product can be measured by discretionary government budgets, even though that's only a small part of the importance of having this vs. that person in office) than for any other product except B2B stuff like a ton of ball bearings.

Posted by Rich | February 7, 2008 11:12 AM"

When you add up all of the Democratic and Republican candidates that is a lot of money, especially considering only one of them becomes president. As such, all of the money all of the other candidates spend goes down the drain.

Posted by Reality Man | February 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Pat:
The whole "wait your turn" or "it's not the right time" thing has been used forever. Hell, they even used it on MLK Jr., when he started protesting. It's an argument people make when they can't stand on their own merits. After all, what "experience" does Hillary have besides Senator?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 7, 2008 11:56 AM

And another thing...all you men out these need to remember that Hillary represents Woman Power. It's the next wave and will bring the downfall of men after many centuries of domination of the Sisterhood. Our day has arrived!

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 7:40 AM

=============

Wins the thread, hands down.

Posted by NCProsecutor | February 7, 2008 11:57 AM

Go Hillary GO!

You are the only chance the Republicans have this fall, so you just gotta win this thing!

Posted by Splinter | February 7, 2008 12:06 PM

The reason one would feel sorry for her if she loses has nothing to do with her economic well-being, but because she has worked very hard to be the first woman president, and has had to deal with the most irrational hostilities and resentments in modern political history, along with media, yourself included, uniformly biased against her, and astonishgly blatant misogyny.

This kind of reasoning seems blind to several underlying fundamentals: Hillary has indeed CAMPAIGNED very hard to be the first woman president, but I find it hard to argue that she's gotten where she is by "working hard." Margaret Thatcher got where she got by working hard. If her husband turned around and ran for prime minister, I'd be making the same argument I'm making today: He didn't get where he got because he "worked hard," he got where he got because he married the right woman, just like Hillary married the right man. Stating the obvious here is not "misogyny" and I, as a woman, deeply resent the implication that if I do state the obvious, I'm some sort of self-hating feminist.
And I'm so tired of all of the "poor Hillary, victim of everything," I keep seeing. She was the inevitable nominee, the wife of every Democrat's favorite Democrat, for Pete's sake! Barack came out of nowhere and fought incredible odds to get where he is today, including the Clintons' despicable race-baiting, which really surprised and disappointed me. Say what you like, Obama's run a brilliant campaign thus far. If anyone's "worked hard" to get where they are, it's him, and he's done it all on his own.

Posted by Sarah | February 7, 2008 12:10 PM

"I just donated $50 because I'm sick of the Clinton bashing." -

Ah yes, the classic Rovian tactical maneuvering has come full circle! The candidate with 35 years of experience, a former president-in-good-standing as a husband and a huge political machine at her disposal is now in a bad predicament. Evidently we must feel sorry for her because her campaign is going broke and she can't get rid of that pesky new-comer.

Clinton bashing? You mean the campaign that now openly tries to paint Obama as the "black-candidate ", whereas before surrogates like Penn and Bob Johnson tried to paint him as the "coke-head" candidate and the "secular mandrassa" candidate.

You mean she actually receives negative attention because she intentionally distorts Obama's Iraq record, or that she had to pull a commercial off the air because it so badly distorted Obama's Reagan comments?

Is it Clinton bashing because two male senators actually had the nerve to challenge her together in a debate and we had to hear the cries of bullying, yet when the same is done on Obama in the next debate he is deemed "weak"?

Give me a break. Clinton is a disaster of her own making. She is the leader that is supposed to take on the Republican machine, right? This should be a cakewalk!

Posted by Rontrel Johnson | February 7, 2008 12:16 PM

And another thing...all you men out these need to remember that Hillary represents Woman Power. It's the next wave and will bring the downfall of men after many centuries of domination of the Sisterhood. Our day has arrived!

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 7:40 AM

=============

How is it woman power if she's running on the legacy of a man?

Also, the "expereince" argument is disingenuous at best. Her husband, on whose legacy she is running, was governor for a couple of terms and ran against a guy with the following on his resume: President, VP, Ambassador to China, head of the CIA, congressman, WWII veteran. I'd argue Bill did a better job than George the Elder, despite substantially less experience. In this case, however, she has more experience as a first lady and less experience as an elected politician.

Posted by Mike | February 7, 2008 12:18 PM

I love how anytime anyone criticizes Hillary Clinton, they're automatically misogynistic. This is what Obama is up against. Anytime Hillary appears to be losing, women feel sorry for her and she gets a bounce.

Folks, it's not about gender or race -- or, for god's sake, waiting your turn. No more dynasties. I'm 35 years old and I've never had the chance to vote in an election that didn't have a Clinton or Bush on the ballot. I didn't vote for Bush. And I won't for Clinton. I'd happily vote for a woman for President -- just not this one.

Obama has all the substance and policy wonkishness of Hillary -- and he has the ability to inspire. There's just no contest.

Posted by Steve | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM

A year ago, or even six months ago, almost everyone thought HRC's built-in advantages were such that no one would even mount a serious challenge, let alone push here campaign to the limits. Yet the "experienced" establishment candiate, with 100% name recognition and heir to a large and well established poltiical machine, has been out-organized and out-fund-raised by the upstart. That should tell you something.

And no one should "feel sorry" for anyone in politics. No one makes you play in the big leagues.

Posted by Matt | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

The key thing in 2008 is to build a movement with coattails that reach into the Congressional elections so that we don't have to keep working around these small-majority, milquetoast, cabbagy Congressional caucuses that we have to put up with at present, and so that we can silence the right-wing's whining that Democrats didn't get a majority of the vote.

And the movement and the decisive elections that go with it will never happen with a candidate who thinks you can do everything with spin doctors, who thinks that Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe are rare political talents, who has let her last two campaign budgets get completely out of control with wasted fluff, and who seems to be pushing a co-presidency with her ex-president husband rather than a new direction that isn't totally dependent on Beltway hacks and sucking up to the Bush family.

And a movement also won't be built with a nominee who triangulates on policy and ideology at every turn despite her own liberal instincts. In contrast to Obama, who preaches a comforting message of unity that attracts people from across the ideological spectrum while running the most liberal voting record in the Senate. That's my kind of candidate, a solid liberal who can get 60 percent of the vote.

Posted by DBX | February 7, 2008 12:46 PM

I'd have a lot more respect for Senator Clinton if she'd spent more than a few months working for the Children's Defense Fund before bolting to a corporate law firm.

Instead, now, she talks as though she has been "working for children" for 35 years. If children own Wal-Mart, that might be true, but Clinton was a corporate lawyer for over 10 years and wife of a governor that used her connections to land sweet positions on fat-cat company boards. These are not personal attacks - they are facts.

Have we forgotten who the Clintons are? Don't let pity cloud your judgment. Clinton doesn't stand for women or children, she only stands for herself. She'd gleefully throw any one of her "sisterhood" under the bus if it meant a couple more votes.

Posted by Jimbo | February 7, 2008 12:48 PM

Can we really afford a nominee whose main supporters are "under educated" (ie stupid), immigrants, and the elderly?

Yeah, why should blue-collar workers, furriners, and old fogeys have any say in who gets to be president?

Posted by Swift Loris | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM

Hillary is no doubt the smartest and most responsible candidate ever to run for office in the US. She's proven to be beyond honest and her caring for the weak and unappreciated is world class. She's a hero to all women for the way she has risen up and smashed her fist against all the evil men in this world.

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 1:27 PM

I'm an Obama supporter & have been feeling sorry for the Clintons since her Iraq war vote. As a person who tries to lead with compassion, witnessing their "fall from grace" since that time has been sad. So it has nothing to do with her cash crunch & everything to do with realizing how power hungry they both are.

All I can think is that they both must be really miserable deep down. How else could they compromise their espoused values & excuse repeated dishonesty in such a way.

Having voted for Bill 2x, I actually hope they can find some peace & fulfillment...and rediscover their better selves one day...far away from the White House.

Posted by KC | February 7, 2008 1:33 PM

Posted by dudechik | February 7, 2008 1:40 AM
Well, there you have it. Has it occurred to you that that's the engineered emotional response? Vote away, baby!

I've already voted for Obama. I would still vote for him if my primary hadn't already happened. I may feel pity for Clinton but her campaign money problems tend to make me question her political skills and judgment rather than want to give her my vote.

Posted by EWard | February 7, 2008 3:27 AM
Nancy
I would feel sorry for the Country if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. He is going to be an easy target for the Republicans, and they know it.

I believe Obama will make a better general election candidate against McCain than will Clinton. Obama will get knocked around in a general election, no doubt. But Clinton unites a Republican Party looking for something to motivate itself.

Posted by bougie | February 7, 2008 5:56 AM
Nancy, don't feel sorry for HRC! This is exactly how she managed to eke out a victory in New Hampshire:voters(mostly female, I'm sorry to say!) thought the media and Obama and Edwards were ganging up on the poor little woman. I don't mind being disliked, but pitied by anyone:I couldn't bear it!

Which is why I think she would have preferred the info re: the loan had never come out. It calls into question her foundation of competence and political savvy, of knowing how to get things done. She was so set in how she *knew* the game was played she never knew the state of play was changing.

I think she will now probably raise money from supporters who didn't think she would need their money. She's not above using the 'it's hard out here for a woman' card. I don't count her out. I still think she may get the nomination and I will happily vote for her if she does (though not so happily if she gets it only by seating the Florida and Michigan delegates).

The fact she needed to lend her campaign money proves to me why I chose to support Obama. Clinton has been so careful to position herself politically for this run at the presidency she has never risked that position by being a leader. I'm tired of a Democratic leadership so risk-averse and self-interested that nothing changes, even though I believe Democrats are right (for the most part) on the issues. Republicans lead us off a cliff, but they lead.

Posted by Nancy | February 7, 2008 1:37 PM

"Folks, it's not about gender or race -- or, for god's sake, waiting your turn. No more dynasties. I'm 35 years old and I've never had the chance to vote in an election that didn't have a Clinton or Bush on the ballot. I didn't vote for Bush. And I won't for Clinton. I'd happily vote for a woman for President -- just not this one."

ugh, the dynasty argument again. What I love about this one is its inherent xenophobia: we, in the good ol USA aren't supposed to be susceptible to elites controlling power within their families because of democracy. That's only supposed to happen to those "dirty" countries over there. Wake up, people! We're not THAT special.

For 42 years, I've only ever been able to vote for a man. Time for a change.

As to "I'd happily vote for a woman for President - just not this one." Which one then?

Posted by anon7 | February 7, 2008 1:45 PM

Can anyone explain why so many Republicans such as Andrew O'Sullivan and Fred Barnes do not like Barack Obama? Could it be a racial thing?

Posted by Confused by Republican strategy | February 7, 2008 1:51 PM

In the Canadian system, campaigns don´t begin over a year in advance or cost so much money that politicians have to ´lend´ money to their own parties in order to further their bid to become Prime Minister.

I shudder to think how much money these campaigns cost in total, or to whom favours will be owed later on in exchange for hefty donations.... and how much health care, infrastructure, educational improvements, town libraries bla bla bla could be improved if money like this found its way into the community.

It´s time to get a some perpective, the cost of helium balloons for a one night rally could probably feed an Afghan village for six months.

Posted by Karolyn | February 7, 2008 1:58 PM

As McCain is obviously on the way to becoming the Republican candidate, this should benefit Clinton, not Obama.
Obama claims that, as the Democratic nominee, he can attract Clinton's votes, and take Independent/moderate votes from McCain. That's wrong. Clinton's strongest constituency, apart from women, is blue-collar males. In an Obama-McCain toss-up, these blue-collar males will go for McCain. Why? Because these men will be reminded of the many times they, or their friends, have been passed over for promotion or raises, in favor of a black male. They will resent a black man being promoted to the highest office over the evidently better qualified, more experienced McCain. A vote for Obama now is a vote for the Republicans come November. As Democrats start to realize this, money will start flowing to Hillary (the polls already show this).

Posted by Elaine | February 7, 2008 1:58 PM

I remember in '04 DURING the campaign, Kerry taking back his $4million loan during the time I was contributing to his campaign.

I felt suckered and manipulated.

If I am trying to squeeze a contribution from my tight budget, I would be discouraged to see the candidate drop millions of dollars on the campaign.

Posted by copithorne | February 7, 2008 2:36 PM

Elaine,

Nice try. Let's play to stereotypes some more. Of course, those same men will vote for Hillary over McCain because they've never had a women elevated above them?!

and is this the same poll that shows that Hillary supporters like Obama a lot more than Obama supporters like Hillary.

After reading a shit-load and talking, I think a lot of Obama's support comes from distate at politics and the Clinton's.

Maybe the people voting for Obama have actually looked at Hillary's record, and her years of experience resulted in nothing tangible.
She voted for the war
She voted for Landmines
she didn't believe her husband had an affair, a serial cheater.
Travelgate
The list of questionable donor's to her campaigns
Her saying that there's nothing wrong with Social security, it's just a Republican plow
Her blaming everything on others
Her complete an utter failure on the Healthcare plan when she was in office. People working in that essentially said it failed because she knew best.
Her lending money to herself, after raising $100MM last year speaks of lack of managment and spending control

I think a lot of Obama supporters will bolt to McCain or stay home if Hillary is nominated, and nothing I mentioned above has to do with the fact that she's a woman. Bill Clinton shouldn't be allowed near power again either.

Posted by Ken | February 7, 2008 2:58 PM

Just read from Time.com she raised 6 million in 24 hours.

She'll be fine. She's terminator personified.

Posted by Jen | February 7, 2008 2:59 PM

Clinton supporters and some in the press keep hyping Hillary's "experience" and that she would somehow be a better manager than "green" and "too young" Obama, but if you compare their campaigns and how they've been managed, especially considering her HUGE head start on him, and her long list of establishment support, can we PLEASE put to bed the notion that she's a better manager?

Obama has already managed to do what many have insisted would be impossible.

(Hmm, if Clinton were elected though, I wonder if she would be willing to use her own money to pay down the debt???)

Posted by Dem in CA | February 7, 2008 3:18 PM

Can anyone explain why so many Republicans such as:
Andrew O'Sullivan
Fred Barnes
Tom Bernstein
Matthew Dowd
Robert Kagan
John Canning
Peter Wehner
Susan Eisenhower
Joe Scarborough
Rich Lowry
Peggy Noonan
David Brooks
Tricia Moseley
Byron York
and Tweetie Pie...

do not like Barack Obama? Could it be a racial thing?

Posted by Still confused about Republican strategy | February 7, 2008 3:23 PM

"She's a hero to all women for the way she has risen up and smashed her fist against all the evil men in this world."

@Susan: Like the ones who cheat on their wives repeatedly and have been accused on multiple occasions of sexual harassment?

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 5:22 PM

Fake Susan said:

"I can't tell the difference between a candidate's husband race-baiting and some meanies making fun of me in the comments section of a blog."

Yeah, that's right. And it is just SO upsetting to be mocked by an anonymous poster on a MB.

I guess that's just the best that you can do.

Posted by Susan | February 7, 2008 5:59 PM

Maybe people would feel sorry for her because she had a very bitter disappointment in the most public setting possible. Perhaps people not obsessed with relative or absolute wealth would feel ordinary human sympathy. Or, perhaps this is another of the evil Clintons' way of manipulating the gullible who are not so clever as Saint Matt

Posted by Michael S | February 7, 2008 10:06 PM

Maybe people would feel sorry for her because she had a very bitter disappointment in the most public setting possible. Perhaps people not obsessed with relative or absolute wealth would feel ordinary human sympathy. Or, perhaps this is another of the evil Clintons' ways of manipulating the gullible who are not so clever as Saint Matt

Posted by Michael S | February 7, 2008 10:06 PM

HuffPo FundRace is fun.

See, if you're rich, you can do what Jodie Foster did - contribute to all the Dem candidates:

Alicia Foster Actress Self employed
Updated Q2/2007
Hillary Clinton
4,600

Alicia Foster Actress Self employed
Updated Q2/2007
Barack Obama
3,300

Alicia Foster Actress Self employed
Updated Q2/2007
Bill Richardson
1,000

Notice, however, that most of the money went to the "feminist" candidate...but approximately the same amount was split among male candidates.

Covering all the bases, it's called. Smart - which is what Foster is normally thought of as being.

"She's terminator personified."

That'll be the day Hillary Clinton can match Summer Glau.

Re: "As to 'I'd happily vote for a woman for President - just not this one.' Which one then?"

How about this one?

Jolie In Iraq For UN Refugee Mission
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/jolie-in-iraq-for-un-refu_n_85465.html

One of the comments on this article already suggested running her for President:

"I think she should run for office. She's committed & smart. She puts her money where her mouth is. She is qualified, and she's a citizen. And she has every right to speak out about causes that touch her."

Another poster hit the nail on the head:

"Anyone commenting should view the whole video. She is calling our government out on THE WORST HUMANITARIAN CRISIS OF OUR GENERATION. I think she was highly diplomatic in her comments all things considered - but she made the point clear- our government is responsible for the chaos refugees are forced to return to and how we handle that will determine global stability, and we have to handle that NOW. Our criminal admin was hoping it would "go away until after the elections" She just f$#%d them on that.

Go Angelina."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 1:44 AM

Clinton Self-Financing

Comments (163)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories