Clinton Self-Financing

Not only is Hillary Clinton apparently weighing making a loan to her own campaign to try to keep pace with Barack Obama's big fundraising haul, but it seems she's already loaned herself $5 million. Howard Wolfson says:

Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.

Now it seems to me that, logically, one problem with self-financing ought to be that it hurts fundraising. The reminder that the Clintons are multi-millionaires would seem to me to make giving them a modest cash donation of $250 or $500 seem like a less attractive proposition. Does it turn you into an Obama donor? Of course not. But maybe you donate that money to the poor, or to a favorite congressional candidate, or you buy yourself something nice. After all, why would you donate money to someone much richer than yourself? Of course, if Clinton wins you give her money to pay back her loan because you're looking for favors from the White House. But from where we're sitting now, but for now, what's the point?

Of course regular people may not look at it that way. I've had more than one person, including people who aren't necessarily Clinton supporters but who aren't Clinton-haters either, tell me they will "feel sorry" for Clinton if she loses. From where I sit, a multimillionaire US Senator has an okay life whether or not she gets elected president. But obviously a lot of rank-and-file Democrats feel a deep, personally connection to the Clinton family in a way that transcends the banal reality that the Clintons are much, much better off than the average American.

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

Comments

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 |