Skip to main content

A month ago I raised the issue of Hillary Clinton's campaign debt as a complicating factor is ending her futile quest for the Democratic nomination.  Time had published speculation from a Clinton aide that mounting campaign debt could create problems for Clinton, because she would have to get additional donations before she could start raising for her next Senate campaign.  

The issue of Clinton's campaign debt and what Obama might be able to do about it is causing confusion.  The inherent difficulty for most people in making sense of the nuances of campaign finance issues has been exacerbated by some reportage and commentary on the matter.  For instance, a few days ago Josh Marshall ruminated on how Obama donors would feel if their contributions went from Obama's campaign fund in to Clinton's campaign fund.  

It's not a subject worth ruminating on, because it would be illegal for Obama's campaign fund to donate more than $2,000 to Clinton's campaign.  

Unfortunately Steve Benen has quoted Marshall's piece without noting that it's not legally permissible for Obama to donate money to clear Clinton's debt.  Others, including the NYT, are confusing the matter by not making it clear that Obama can not give more than $2,300 $2,000* from his campaign fund to Clinton's campaign.

Let's make this absolutely clear:

Money given to Obama's campaign, either in the past or in the future, WILL NOT end up in Clinton's campaign fund.

What Obama can do is go to his donors and ask them to contribute to Clinton's campaign.  He could have his campaign send out email appeals to small donors to help Clinton pay off her debt.  

Helping Clinton pay off her debt would not be a simple act of altruism by Obama.  It would be in Obama's self-interest to help take the debt issue off the table if it facilitated her exit from the race and helped avoid the distractions of delegate challenges and talk about "taking it to the convention."

There's still the question, however, of how much Obama could really raise for Clinton, and whether it would be enough to get her out of the race.  I'm skeptical that the offer to help erase her campaign debt would amount to much.  Her debt is over $10 million, and it's possible she's putting more money is now to keep her campaign going.  These kinds of offers are usually made when the losing candidate had taken out a bank loan for campaign debt, or had done something like put their house up for collateral in order to secure a loan.  Those are the acts of a candidate who doesn't have the means to put in her own money, or simply refuses to pay out of her own pocket.

Hillary Clinton didn't borrow money for her campaign.  She essentially wrote a check from her personal account to her campaign account.  With their new wealth since Bill Clinton left the White House, $10 million isn't really all that big a chunk of change for the Clintons.  A candidate can't carry debt from one campaign to the next, unless the debt is to themselves.  Thus, Hillary Clinton could easily write off the debt to herself.  

Since the money would not be necessary to protect Clinton's viability for future campaigns, donations to retire Clinton's debt would really be contributions directly to the personal and private wealth of Hillary and Bill Clinton.  I don't see many Obama donors taking money from their personal pocket and putting it in to Hillary Clinton's personal pocket, especially not after the campaign Clinton has run and continues to run against Obama.  

So, people worried that money you donated in the past or might donate in the future to Barack Obama might go to Hillary Clinton, relax.  Whether any of your money goes to Hillary Clinton will be your decision.  Unless you want it to, none of your money will end up in Hill and Bill's piggy bank.  

*[The personal contribution limit increased from $2,000 to $2,300 for this campaign cycle, but the contribution limit for a campaign committee to campaign committee contribution remained capped at $2,000.]

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:55 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Yes, thanks for clarifying with the facts! (10+ / 0-)

      If Hillary and Bill want to cut their costs in this campaign they simply must STOP NOW!

      I doubt that too many blue-collar workers will be upset that the Clintons owe lots of money seeing that they are multi-millionaires.

      The Clintons should spread around some of that wealth to the thousands of laid off factory workers who are struggling to survive instead of wasting it on a failed campaign.

      Obama's the nominee, and no one owes the Clintons anything.

      Visit www.soapbox4truth.org

      by keenekarl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:23:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Campaigns have the same limits as people? (0+ / 0-)

      That seems wrong.  I think there are limits, but I'm fairly certain its not $2300.

      Imagine if the government took David's sling away and gave it to Goliath. Now you understand tort reform.

      by bosdcla14 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:39:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Limits (8+ / 0-)

        PAC's: $5,000
        Individuals: $2,300
        Campaign Committees: $2,000

        Each can give that amount for the primary, and for the general.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:46:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's this about LOANING money?? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blamb

          I had heard that it was standard practice for this to happen in previous campaigns.  Does that money usually come from the winning candidates own pockets or is it considered different if the money is not actually going towards the "campaign" but going towards campaign debts?  

          Anyway - I don't want a cent to go to the Clintons from Barack Obama's campaign fund OR his personal account.  The idea of "loaning" money to a campaign is utterly ridiculous.  A campaign does not exist to make money like a business does, a campaign exists to get a candidate elected.  So if a campaign doesn't exist to "make money" how could it possibly "repay a loan"... what Hillary really means to say is she DONATED money to her campaign.  She apparently is just greedy enough to want it back...?  Maybe this is why no one else wants to DONATE to her campaign either.  I'll also be happy to LOAN her campaign some money, at a very high interest rate.

          I should add though - I do think any small businesses that have outstanding invoices should be paid, the rest of the debt I don't care about.  

    •  Hillary can go you know where (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      comeinpbrstreetgang, koNko

      Maybe she can get some money there!

      80 percent of success is just showing up - Woody Allen.

      by Churchill on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:31:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For What It's Worth, (0+ / 0-)

      The Hillbots over at TalkLeft think this is all a PR stunt by Obama to make Hillary look bad, and that she and Bill could raise the money over the weekend.  Not too many of them donating, though, perhaps because they're too busy going all apoplectic and cursing Obama's name and holding out hope.

  •  Reassuring. Thank you. (7+ / 0-)

    But not enough, I'm afraid.

    Until the Obama campaign says in crystal clear terms that they will not help Hillary with her campaign debt - something they have pointedly refrained from doing - the perception will inhibit Obama's fundraising.

    Hillary 08 - "I'm White"

    by Joe Beese on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM PDT

    •  umm, I think (15+ / 0-)

      Obama could ASK his donors to help retire her debt.  He can't MAKE them donate.  So I wouldn't care if he asked.

      "The time will soon come when you must choose between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

      by cgvjelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One solution is... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Picot verde

        What could be a possible solution is for her campaign to list the names of the various vendors who are owed money, then an escrow-like account could be set up for those particular debts. We (donors) can then decide which specific debts to contribute to. I think that the small businesses who were contracted for campaign-related events should not be left to hang dry especially in this harsh economic climate. That, I can live with. Plus it will be good PR to the "hard-working" coalition just which candidate really has their back. But to contribute to a general fund where our monies will simply disappear into a gaping Mark Penn hole or worse Hillary's own bank account, that is a no-no.

        "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

        by zizi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:28:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Asking people to help reduce her debt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill, BonzoDogBand, Alohilani

      would be a no lose situation.  It can only smooth things over with Hillary, and no one is required to donate if they don't want to.

      I am a liberal and I'm damn proud of it

      by smash artist on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't understand why there needs to be a state- (15+ / 0-)

      ment from the Obama camp on this. They have no intention of breaking the laws or rewriting them. And it actually serves their purpose to say they would consider helping her out as it may mollify some of her supporters. It is the MSM responsibility to clarify they law rather than to repeat rumors.

      I see that Tom Edsall, after several e-mails, finally included the fact about the limitations of what Obama could do within the law. Maybe the rest of the media will finally put it out there.

      "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

      by DWKING on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blamb

        They would be willing to do whatever they can within the confines of the law to help Hillary out in the name of party unity.

        Bwahahahahaha!!!!!  You'll get not one red cent from me, Ms. Clinton, that's for darned sure.

      •  Obama does not have to do squat to help Clinton (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scrape, The Gryffin, nanobubble, koNko, blamb

        He is in the power position and she ficked herself and tried to fuck Obama.

        She's been seriously in debt for quite a while and what has she done about it??? Create more debt.

        I don't think Obama wants to alienate people that are already on board with his canidicy and certainly Clinton's recent and obvious race baiting she's done nothing to warrant consideration for VP or any other position in an Obama administration.

        She's done, she's toast. I agree with an earlier poster: if Obama hasd 10-11 million to spare, give it to people who need it, nit to someone who's family has earbned over 109 million in the last seven years.

        I wish all you Clinton lovers would go back to where you crawled here from.

      •  Obama can give her two grand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, blamb

        that's enough!

        80 percent of success is just showing up - Woody Allen.

        by Churchill on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reply to DWKING (0+ / 0-)

        Tom Edsall's piece at Huffington Post

        Obama Suggests Offer Maybe Clinton Can't Refuse

        "Historically after a campaign is done and you want to unify the party, particularly when you've had a strong opponent, you want to make sure you're putting that opponent in a strong position so that they can work to win an election in November. So, obviously, I would want to have a broad range of discussions with Senator Clinton about how I could make her feel good about
        the process and have her on the team moving forward."

        But then Edsall  clarifies exactly what can and can't be done legally.  I get the facts, but my concern is that I don't like the idea that Obama needs to "figure out how to make her feel good about the process" vis-a-vis a "discussion" about helping her financially.  This shouldn't even be a consideration given the horrendous nature of the Clintons' Rovian campaigning.  I already feel utterly betrayed by the Clintons sucking up to the penultimate right-wing-lunatic-fringe-enemy,  Richard Mellon Scaife.  This hard working white working class American does not want anything to do with helping out the Clintons financially after all their racial remarks.

        "Extreme violence has a way of preventing us from seeing the interests it serves." Naomi Klein

        by rlharry on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If Hillary had an ounce of self-respect left (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scrape, blamb

      she would pay all the vendors she owes money to.  I feel very had for all the small businesses that extended her credit while she still had some credibility.  I don't feel bad for any small business that extended her credit after the news came out that she was stiffing her vendors.

      If she leaves this campaign and continues to stiff these small vendors, I hope some smart attorney gets them together and files a class-action suit against her.

      Finally, if she continues to stiff Mark Penn his $10 million, do you think he will sue her?

      •  Bob Herbert Said It All (0+ / 0-)

        in his column on the Clintons this morning: theyr have no shame.

      •  Campaign vendors (0+ / 0-)

        If she leaves this campaign and continues to stiff these small vendors, I hope some smart attorney gets them together and files a class-action suit against her.

        First off, if Hillary's campaign can't pay its existing debt, it can't pay off court judgments, either.  Assuming that normal bankruptcy laws apply to campaigns (and I don't know that for a fact), court judgments will generally rank pari passu with other unsecured claims.   Nor can she necessarily start paying off creditors selectively; that could be construed as an illegal preference in favor of some vendors vis-a-vis others.

        I'm not thrilled with anyone stiffing small businesses, but that said, the practice is hardly unique to the Clinton campaign -- it happens to virtually every campaign that finishes in the red.  Indeed, I've heard of campaign workers (not Hillary's) who get stiffed when trying to get reimbursed for campaign-related expenses.  

        Small businesses need to ask for cash up front when rendering services to campaigns.

      •  I'll wouldn't give Mark Penn ANYTHING! (0+ / 0-)

        He is worthless!

        80 percent of success is just showing up - Woody Allen.

        by Churchill on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  but given what this diary clarifies (0+ / 0-)

      that would amount to Obama announcing he has no intention of breaking the law.

    •  Campaign finance law is confusing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goshzilla, foufou

      it's designed that way to make it difficult for any candidate who can't afford specialized professional help. This diary is much appreciated...I would not have guessed that a campaign can't give more to another campaign than an individual can, though since theoretically a corporation can't, either, it does make sense, sort of.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Corporations Can't Give a Penny (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, peraspera, goshzilla

        Corporations are prohibited from making campaign contributions.  Only PAC's can, and their money has to come from the contributions of individuals.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So easy to forget (0+ / 0-)

          that corporate contributions are actually prohibited, when it is commonplace to talk about which candidate a given corporation gave more money to (I've heard of corporate PAC's, and I think sometimes the amount given by individual employees/officers of a corporation are counted as being "from" the corporation)....

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  However corporations can and do.. (0+ / 0-)

          "Corporations aren't allowed to donate money to candidates. But executives and employees of companies and their spouses can each give up to $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and another $2,300 for the general election. Candidates must make public the names and employers of people who donate $200 or more, a group that the Center for Responsive Politics says mostly come from executive ranks."
          ..

          "Employees of financial-services, insurance and real-estate companies have donated to Obama over McCain by almost 2-to-1 – and favored Clinton by even more. Health care and pharmaceutical companies have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to McCain. Defense companies put McCain ahead of Obama, but behind Clinton. Energy, construction and agriculture interests have given more to both Democrats. Only in the category of transportation has McCain outraised Obama and Clinton."

          http://www.signonsandiego.com/...

          -Funds GOP usually gets going to rivals
          By Brody Mullins
          THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
          April 3, 2008

  •  Thank you (16+ / 0-)

    for the clarification.  This seemed like a bad idea, for many reasons.  Glad to hear it's not legal.  For Obama's donors to bail out a candidate with the personal wealth of Hillary Clinton would not be acceptable, or even moral.

  •  Thanks for front paging this as I and others (13+ / 0-)

    have repeatedly posted to the deluge of diaries on this subject trying to explain exactly what you have done here. Maybe we can finally put this to rest.

    "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

    by DWKING on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM PDT

  •  I will donate a small amount if Obama ask me too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rontun

    "The Conservatives definition of torture: Anything that provides death or false information from its captive." Me 2007

    by army193 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM PDT

    •  Same. I'd throw in some $$ if Hillary agreed... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T B J

      ...that she'd drop out of the race.

      I wouldn't be surprised if a few thousand, 100k, or perhaps even million other Obama donors would feel the same way!

      We're in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another belief. - Alan Alda

      by sawgrass727 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would too if... (0+ / 0-)

        but what if she took the opportunity to say "Oh wow! Look at how much money I have collected from donors. This just proves that I should be the candidate!" Can you tell that I don't trust her?

        "Some folks are wise and some are otherwise." --Tobias George Smolett

        by lynneinfla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:30:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  END Not Suspend, the HRC campaign. (0+ / 0-)

          Let's get serious here. If she agrees finally  to end the race, not just suspend it, so her campaign does not decide on August 1 to make a last charge up the Front Range because an asteroid might have appeared in the sky (unforeseen asteroids being what has to hit O for her to have any chance of returning, in the vocabulary I use), I would be willing for the benefit of the party and my candidate, O, to hold a fundraiser for debt retirement for HRC. Where I am, what that means is that the ones who come, arrive at my house, leave money, cluck at the decorating and my paint choices,  eat  cheap canapes  and drink cheap beverages if they like what I put out, and either stand around doing the kind of ugly chitchat I have objected to here, or just leave with a napkin full of food, having done a difficult duty which will nevertheless allow the O campaign to go forward without fear of any  HRC resurrection. I then send the money to a specific fund organized by somebody or other for this specific purpose and she gets it when the deal says she does. Do I want to do this?
          No. Will I do it to achieve the goal set forth in the first lines of this post. Yes.

    •  I don't believe Obama will be asking his (7+ / 0-)

      online supporters to donate to Hillary's campaign for any reason. If he were to approach anyone I would imagine it would be the major donors to his campaign who have maxed out on their contributions to him.

      He could then demand a quid pro quo from Hillary's maxed-out donors that they donate to his campaign.

      "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

      by rontun on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's "ask" letter (0+ / 0-)

      Dear supporter,

      I am asking you to help Hillary Clinton retire the huge debt she amassed during our primary race.

      Hillary Clinton performed a valuable service softening me up for preparing me for the Republican attacks I will face during the general election.

      Please donate to her whatever you feel that service was worth.

      Yours sincerely,

      Barack Obama

      Barack Obama personifies the American dream

      by Jim in Chicago on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:53:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Mini "Operation Chaos"??!! (6+ / 0-)

    Senator Obama must be smart enough not to ask people who support him to donate to Senator Clinton! Talk about holding your nose to help "your enemy"! The release of the Clinton tax returns prove they have the coin; make them pay for it!! It's their fault for running a craptacular campaign and hiring over-expensive morons.

    "I Have Nothing More to Say About this That is Either Relevant or True." Keith Olbermann

    by CityLightsLover on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:08 PM PDT

  •  Josh's wife was in labor around that time.. (8+ / 0-)

    so I think mayber Josh gets a break on this one.

    Mark Halperin, on the other hand, does not.  And Karen Tumulty doesn't help out here, either.

    Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

    by Casey Morris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM PDT

    •  I gladly give Josh a pass. However (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, Phil S 33

      the lazy-assed "journalists" who repeat rumors when they could easily fact check campaign laws have no excuse.

      They seem to serve more as agent provocateurs rather than real reporters.

      "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

      by DWKING on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hold your predictions (1+ / 0-)

    till after you see the spin on wv.

  •  More Thanks For The Clarification (8+ / 0-)

    This issue has been really bothering me lately.  Having donated to Obama's campaign, I would have been outraged if money went from the fund I donated to into the Clinton's personal fortune.  They have enough; and they should have cut some of those personal checks long ago to pay their small vendors who have been stiffed up until now.

    9.2 has two digits. Therefore Pennsylvania was a double digit win.

    by jerseycorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:31 PM PDT

  •  It seems entirely fair to me (2+ / 0-)

    that, if asked, I would contribute to the "retire the Clinton debt" fund.

    Now, I would not give as much as I would if her campaign had been as honorable and democratic as Obama's or some of the other contenders who are now in Obama's VP lineup.

    But I WILL. Because as a Democrat and as a Progressive, I believe that the Cycle of Revenge social maxim is DEAD and that we must look forward, not backwards.

    I believe in HOPE, THE FUTURE, and a return to CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, not the stuff we have been forced to take from Reagan in 1980 down to the present.

    It is time to move forward.

    Ugh. --UB.

    •  The "Swell the Clintons' Personal Wealth Fund" (11+ / 0-)

      The essay makes clear the personal debt owed by the Clinton campaign to the Clinton checking account is no impediment to her future fundraising efforts.

      Therefore there is no "help a teammate" aspect to retiring this debt.  None whatsoever.

      The Clintons decided to spend a chunk of their personal wealth in order to sustain a vanity candidacy that continued on past the point where it begane to damage "teammate" Barackk Obama's candidacy.

      So why should I, a poor person, donate my scarce money to a rich person in order to make the rich person richer?  Why should I be a "team player" in order to benefit a rich person, when the rich person built up the debt by being the polar opposite of a "team player"?

      That's fucked up man.

      Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

      by Quicklund on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:25:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that is absolutely correct, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        and is bolstered by statement recently by Clinton campaign staff that they knew the race was over in February.

        There is a difference between spitefully withholding needed assistance on the one hand and simply declining to let yourself be taken advantage of by a greedy, vain person with an overweening sense of entitlement on the other.  I am of the opinion that a request to help the Clintons retire the debt they own themselves from their personal fortune (one which they were able to earn almost entirely because people like you and I gave them the opportunity to hold public office) falls squarely into the second category.  Others may differ . . .

  •  But does donating to Obama mean that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, Nance

    the money goes to Hamas?

    (snark-- BIG TIME--ok?  i'm just making some funny...)

  •  John Kerry lent himself money (0+ / 0-)

    during the dem primaries in 2003, when he was looking lame before winning Iowa.  The question came up then where the money would come from if his campaign folded, and I thought people said then that he would still have to pay it off, by fundraising as a Senator.

    Hawkish on impeachment.

    by clyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM PDT

  •  I think the strategy should be (13+ / 0-)

    To just ignore her until she goes away.

    If she's hurting for money, she will soon have to drop out.

    John McCain for President. And go f**k yourself!

    by slippytoad on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for clarifying, and for pointing out that (7+ / 0-)

    the Clintons have enough money to cover this.

  •  What about all the money Clinton has in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ArthurPoet

    her general election fund? Can she somehow use that to pay of her debt? She must have quite a bit in there.

  •  Is she going to stiff her small vendors? (4+ / 0-)

    If there was a way to be certain they'd be paid, I'd contribute. It would likely generate some goodwill for the Obama campaign if Obama supporters did that.

    Lousy Bowlers for Obama

    by dharmafarmer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm a giver (10+ / 0-)

    by nature.  But there is an exception to every rule.  This would be one.

    And whatever Team Obama does, don't let the Clintons get their hands on Barack's mailing lists.  They'll just turn around and sell it.

  •  CNN.com has the superdelegate story in their (9+ / 0-)

    featured box.
    They have a pic of an angry, frustrated Hil beside a laughing Obama.
    http://www.cnn.com/

    They change the pics quickly sometimes, so go quickly. It is classical gas.

    "...fighting the wildfires of my life with squirt guns."

    by deMemedeMedia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM PDT

  •  Trust would be a big issue (6+ / 0-)

    Obama would have to secure Hillary's promise to not use those contributions to fund an ongoing campaign against him.  She'd essentially have to drop out of the race before he could ask his donors to make contributions to her as well.  

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:04:57 PM PDT

  •  Glad it made it to the front page, (4+ / 0-)

    feel like I have been typing my fingers off countering all the effing bad information floating out there about this issue, lot of peep saying "Well I'm not donating because I don't want my money going to Clinton"

    I am from MN and if you think our caucuses are undemocratic I have a lake to introduce you to.

    by edgeways on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM PDT

  •  WTF? Don't send her a penny. (11+ / 0-)

    Instead of $109 million, they'll have $99 million or whatever, but what about some freakin' responsibility on her part?  You would be paying Mark Penn's salary for her?  WTF????!!!

    •  Oh they have much more than that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foldingBicycle

      There's that undisclosed $28 million from Bill plus the money for the Library, which is also undisclosed.
      Cannot do it.  Will not do it.

      Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For A More Perfect Union.

      by Alohilani on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This injection of facts into the conversation ... (4+ / 0-)

    ...tend to turn down the temperature of on-line rancor, which, I believe, is against blog etiquette.

    That being said, Senator Clinton could encourage Senator Obama to actually send out some of those e-mail appeals to retire her debt if she spent the rest of her campaigning time - however long that is - focusing her attention on Senator McCain, the candidate who has been pretty much a free ride so far. Attacking McCain and speaking to voters in the states that have not yet voted (and by extension those that already have) about the Democrats' terrific chances for a 1932-style turnaround that could last a generation would go far toward making that turnaround happen.  

    Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

    by Meteor Blades on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM PDT

  •  This stinks to high heaven. Paying off Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orangeuglad

    .. so she'll leave the race?  Is this what our nation has come to?

  •  not even if Barack Obama (7+ / 0-)

    came to my house and kissed my hairy white ass baby, would I give a fucking cent for her to give to the man (Penn) that UNNECESSARILY AND SAVAGELY smeared my candidate.

    Not a god damned cent.  Ever.

    Furthermore, I WANT her to lose her senate seat to a primary challenger in 2012.  I HOPE she's fucking bankrupt by then.


    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! - President Merkin Muffley

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't Obama... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, orangeuglad

    hold fundraisers where all money raised goes towards paying off Clinton's debt?

    Didn't McCain do that for Giuliani?

    Or is this where the issue of Clinton's self-financing comes into play?

  •  Very helpful, thank you. (9+ / 0-)

    The Clintons don't need my financial assistance, and it's nice to know I won't be giving them any against my will.

    Paid for by the Tirebiter For Political Solutions Committee, Sector R.

    by SicXitGM on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM PDT

  •  And you know what else is funny? (6+ / 0-)

    The same people who would send her money now to retire her personal debt to her campaign, will be sending money in a few years to whomever her next primary opponent is.  Let's stop the madness now and start thinking smart about how best to challenge her in her next primary.  

  •  How about (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, wishingwell, dharmafarmer

    Donating money to pay off all hte business owners who are owed money by Hillary?

    With a big wall between those funds and Mark Penn's pocketbook, of course.

    This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

    by emptywheel on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:31 PM PDT

  •  No Way (7+ / 0-)

    It has been abundantly clear since march 1 that Hillary would not win this nomination. She negligently carried on the campaign and incurred debts (distributions to his incompetent consultants) and expect someone to bail her out!

    No way

    •  good point (0+ / 0-)

      continuing this campaign past the point of any reasonable chance of victory has just run up her debts.

      I don't see why anyone should bail Hillary out from the consequences of her own bad judgment.

  •  Call it the "Clinton Ransom Fund" (5+ / 0-)

    Ransom is the amount ($25 Million) that the Clintons are demanding to stop holding the Democratic Party hostage to their ambition.

  •  This was informative. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, peraspera, skjold

    I had no idea.  

    Republicans still don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

    by dkmich on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM PDT

  •  Why? (6+ / 0-)

    Why should I give money to the Clintons? They have over a hundred million in the bank.

    How many years will we run our cars on the blood of our youth?

    by redtex on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:12:16 PM PDT

  •  I'll Donate to Her Campaign if she ends it (0+ / 0-)

    I'll be happy to send her some money if she will end her campaign immediately.

  •  HRC said: I'll campaign her heart out for nominee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, edgeways

    I saw the clip on TV.
    If she helps get a Dem into The White House, helps attract new members to the Democratic Party, we may yet undo some of the damage the Republicans have done to our Democracy, to our country and the world.

    Her exact quote:
    http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/...

    If she does, I'll help retire her debt.
    There is a healing and redemptive power in forgiveness. And on knowing which side the bread is buttered on...which is: party unity.

    Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

    by LNK on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:12:35 PM PDT

    •  Fat chance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry, Alohilani, foufou

      My guess is once she got the money or even the promise of help raising it, she will do little to help Obama with party unity or getting elected in the Fall.  So far during the campaign she never failed to disappoint. Why expect she will not this time?

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  accumbens: I don't think you know enough (1+ / 0-)

        to say what you said. For example, HRC adopted the better Edwards healthcare plan ....and for this you are disappointed?

        Eliz. Edwards wasn't.

        and Obama and HRC regularly praise each other.

        Sorry you missed the 1960 Primary and how JFK and Johnson reconciled. Classic example.

        Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

        by LNK on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:47:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a matter of fact (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't miss the 1960 primary.  The difference was that LBJ was a smart politician and was not into recking the party.

          I guess I just have the picture of her saying how honored she was running with Obama and then turning around with her "shame on you" speech.  Or maybe it was how she's been denying playing the race card, but keeps on doing it and doing it more blantanly.  Then again, maybe she didn't really hedge when asked whether Obama was a Muslim.  She'll say and doing anything to get what she wants. Everybody must recognize that by now.

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:33:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  oh, and we can all rest assured that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlharry

      Hillary Clinton always means what she says, and never hedges or prevaricates or even "misspeaks."

  •  Worried about Clinton's financial woes? Answer... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    Treat everyone as they deserve--and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2

    by pakaal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM PDT

  •  The question not asked... (5+ / 0-)

    ...or answered:

    Why would anybody, especially Obama, pay off Hillary's debts after the way she has acted & is acting?

    I realize part of the Beltway culture is to award irresponsible behavior, but I thought Obama was running for president so he could change that mentality.

    Part of Hillary's bad/irresponsible behavior equation is how she has handled her money.  Part of her ego trip is to recklessly  spend money like a trust fund baby on spring break in Fort Lauderdale.

    Perhaps it is time for Hillary's elitist shield to be removed so she can learn a lesson those of us in the real world have to grapple with:  You reap what you sow.

    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."--Padmé Amidala

    by wyvern on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:58 PM PDT

  •  DHinMI - how do you think this will all pan out? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    What is the likely scenario for Hill.
    Do you think she'll really take this all the way to Denver.
    Get out soon?
    June 15th?
    Take a deal with DNC?
    Curious on your thoughts. Could you update the diary with your thoughts - it would be helpful.
    Thanks, AUSTIN

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM PDT

  •  how did clinton clear vilsack's? (0+ / 0-)

    one of the ways hillary secured tom vilsack's endorsement, you'll remember, was clearing his campaign debt...

    did that not come straight from her coffers? or did she do the approach-the-donors method?

    It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for lack of what is found there. --William Carlos Williams

    by Richard Platypus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM PDT

  •  hush money is a temporary fix (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim in Chicago, rlharry

    It's like giving the kids money to go to the movies.

    It will only work for a little while, and then she'll want something else.

    In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen.- Louis Brandeis

    by crystal eyes on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM PDT

  •  Donations would be unnecssary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, orangeuglad

    If we ever get to the point where Clinton is publicly  asking for money from Obama supporters (directly or indirectly) in order to retire her campaign debt, the campaign is over.

    There's no way she could possibly justify to her supporters that the only reason she was still in the race was to get herself out of debt. They would abandon her in droves and she'd be left with no choice but to concede.

  •  IMO thiis will never happen. The Clintons have, (5+ / 0-)

    besides their personal wealth, a lot of very wealthy friends---like the ones who have in turn threatened Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. They can easily raise the money themselves.

    However, they do have one major problem and that is lack of Power. Much of the money they have received since Bill left office was given in hopes of access once Hillary got the Presidency. Now all that money appears to have been in vain (explaining why she is refusing to quit). These contributors don't give out of friendship, they give to buy access. So my suspicion is that Hillary is really bargaining for position.

    VP is out. Too many bridges burned there. And 2012 is not going to happen. Again, those bridges. But she may be angling for Harry Reid's job or something similar that will give her more power than just that of NY senator.

    "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

    by DWKING on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM PDT

    •  No, they can't raise the money. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elmo

      Their wealthy friends have all (or almost all) already maxed out to the campaign and can't give anymore. They need someone else's wealthy friends to chip in if the debt is to be retired.

      •  There are those 10 supporters (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou

        that were going to fund the Michigan re-vote for her.  They each were going to contribute $12 million towards that goal.  They're not maxed out.  They can do it.

        Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For A More Perfect Union.

        by Alohilani on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:04:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maxed out legally. (0+ / 0-)

          Any one person can only give $2300 to a given campaign. Clinton's big donors have already given that. They are not allowed to give her anymore. Therefore, she needs to find other people to give.

          •  Mahalo for explaining that again, MissLaura. (0+ / 0-)

            Especially when you consider the appalling tactics of the Clinton campaign, it's also ironic that for once, HRC's big donors are constrained by the law.  

            Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For A More Perfect Union.

            by Alohilani on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  once again, thanks (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DHinMI, DWKING, peraspera, dharmafarmer, voila

    for clarifying this issue.

    i sadly am afraid that you'll need to do this again, as will a lot of us also, since there is a vindictive streak to the rumor, and not all of it aimed at hrc.

    those with a vested interest in keeping this crap alive do not, i think, share our blog's collective goal.

    _________________________________

    "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."

    -9.75 (economic), -7.18 (social)

    by dadanation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM PDT

  •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, rlharry, foufou

    for the clarification. Actually, monies being transferred to the Clinton camp had crossed my mind. Happy to hear that won't be the case.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM PDT

  •  thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, foufou

    DHinMI for the clarification. I'm glad to hear it. So many of Obama's contributors really didn't have it, but they scraped it up and made sacrifices to donate. It was bothering me that those donations might not go where they were intended. It felt illegal, so I'm glad it IS illegal.

  •  With the Clintons' net worth at 50+ million (9+ / 0-)

    and the ability to make millions more for the foreseeable future, I don't even know why this is an issue.  They should take their own money if their donations fall short and pay off the small businesses that they owe that have provided services for their campaign.  If I had that kind of money and potential earnings, I wouldn't even think twice about doing it myself.  She was the one responsible for the way her campaign was run and she should bear the consequences like a big girl.  I must add I was a big Clinton supporter until a few weeks ago, but every day something comes up that makes me wonder what I was thinking, and this issue is one of them.

  •  Wasted resources, mistaken trust (6+ / 0-)

    So Obama's campaign spends resources, not money, baling out Clinton in form of staff time and contributor good will.  I'd rather the work and good will be spent on something worthwhile to get Obama elected.

    He's going to win the nomination anyway so why bother to reward Clinton for her gutter politics and campaign mismanagement?  During this primary campaign, Clinton has been Lucy to Obama's Charlie Brown.  She's made nice and then attacked - pulled the football away each time so to speak.

    Why trust her now?  Why think she will really get behind a unity campaign let alone behind Obama's election.  Won't happen.  So faar expecting the worst out of Clinton has been the safe bet.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM PDT

  •  Thank You! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, elmo, Alohilani, foufou

    Maybe this will be "front page enough" to stop all the handwringing and misplaced outrage.

    Wanna help her? Give.

    Don't? Don't.

    Simple enough for even Grampa McCain to understand when Lieberman whispers it in his ear.

    Obama - Sibelius 08!! McCain will have such a hard time saying it, his head will explode!!

    by ATLSandlapper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:04 PM PDT

  •  Let Her Pay Her Own Debts! (9+ / 0-)

    And go away already. We have a general election and the future of the country to fight for.

  •  I can still see Obama helping out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    since, as you point out, he will not be giving her any money, just lending his voice to her spiel. If no one listens to him, he can say it's not his fault. Really.

    Also, you make an interesting observation that had not occurred to me before: Any contributions made at this time would be money in the Clinton's pockets - and they have plenty there already.

    So, I'll make a deal: I will contribute to pay Hillary back for her loan to herself - if Bill Clinton comes to my house and makes a speech to me, personally. AND takes questions afterward.

    One other thought: On Countdown last night, some pundit made the observation that although it's illegal to try to retire a debt after the campaign is over, everyone does it and at most there will be a small fine. Cynical, but it does lead me to think that Hillary is not continuing to carry on because she's afraid she'll be out $11 million.

    It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven nor to save them from hell.

    by DanK Is Back on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:26:43 PM PDT

  •  CNN? (0+ / 0-)

    CNN has D-Day in WV as a title on their front page. D-day for what?  They are really full of themselves

    •  Yep. The worm has turned. (0+ / 0-)

      The media see a benefit to keeping the race on after they called it. The LA Times has something on the order of "WV could be a problem for Obama".  WaPo is still flogging the Wright story. That didn't take fucking long.

      "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain

      by mentaldebris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for the explanation (0+ / 0-)

    that sure makes me feel a lot better.  I may even chip in if that meant she would go away.  

  •  The day I contribute $100 to help retire (2+ / 0-)

    Clinton's campaign debt--

    and I'm economically differently abled--

    will be one of the happiest days of my life.

    Seriously.

    Nebraska: Who knew it was a hotbed of activist trust-funded latte-drinking Prius-driving brainwashed caucusers? It's not just about the corn.

    by cultural worker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:31:44 PM PDT

  •  The Rules of the Game (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, deMemedeMedia

    One other feature I haven't seen here: the time for repayment of her personal debt to the campaign is not infinite. When that party gathers in Denver in late August, she eats millions of her loan totals that have not been repaid to her by then.

    Debt retirement gets a little more complicated when candidates lend their own money to their campaign. After an election is over, any campaign contributions that go toward repaying the candidate's own loans serve, in practice, as money directly into a politician's pocket. As a result, campaign law (PDF) now limits to $250,000 the amount a campaign committee can repay the candidate after the election. In the case of the Democratic primary, the election will end when a nominee is selected in Denver. So unless Clinton is able to raise enough money to pay herself back by then, she'll have to write off millions of dollars she lent to her campaign.

    This from Slate.

    ubi dubium iba libertad "certainty is sickness"

    by Timus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM PDT

    •  I Saw That, But I'm Not Sure It's Correct (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera

      If it is, it's limited to presidential candidates, because it's NOT the case with other federal candidates, who can raise against past debts after primaries or elections.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reprise (0+ / 0-)

        Read it again, and click the links. The subject is not simply "debt." John Glenn carried a three million debt for years after his own failed try at the brass ring before finally paying it off. The topic is candidates who have loaned their own funds to their candidacies.

        ubi dubium iba libertad "certainty is sickness"

        by Timus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:30:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the Amount (0+ / 0-)

          You can raise against old debt that doesn't exceed $250,000.  If the debt to the candidate exceeds $250,000, anything over that amount has to be paid off by the end of the primary period (if it's primary debt) or the candidate eats it.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:11:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reduncancy (0+ / 0-)

            Which is precisely why I said ...

            When that party gathers in Denver in late August, she eats millions of her loan totals that have not been repaid to her by then.

            ... and not simply "her loan."

            ubi dubium iba libertad "certainty is sickness"

            by Timus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:10:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Tim Russert mistaken; a Kossack right (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mentaldebris, peraspera, rlharry, brein

    IIRC the first time I heard the "repay her debt" proposal was during the long wait for IN results on MSNBC. It went hand-in-hand with the HC for Veep proposal and announcement that

    We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it.

    Given that Tim does not the right or power, unless divinely-ordained, to make that prediction, and that it was twinned with the Veep proposal, it should have been suspect from the start.

    I may remember incorrectly. More importantly, almost immediately after it was bandied about, a Kossack commenter was on top of it.
    Not a diarist, not a front pager (with all due respect to our poster), but one of our commenters, who took the trouble to get (as Kos would say) ass over to Obama's HQ and ask the Chairperson of the Finance Committee, who empowered him to post the information here and on an Obama message board.

    It was simple:

    Earth (Central Time Zone, Chicago) to Tim and TradMedia.

    It's illegal.

    For a post on Timmeh on DKos, see below. I'll be back with the handle of our intrepid Kossack if I can find it. In fact, suggestions on search terms would be welcome, as "illegal" + "donation" + Hillary or Bill will produce a ton of results.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Intrepid Kossack found! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, elmo, rlharry, brein

      He posted on the 8th and it was reposted on the 9th. Here is the original post.
      His user id is
      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      and his handle, Mahakali overdrive

      (BTW the money search terms (sorry, unintentional pun)
      were Obama and HQ.

      i, you probably don't know me but man I've felt like a broken record recently.

      All these people are freaked out that WE Obama supporters are going to pay HRC's debt.

      NOT SO, and it's possibly a Hillary-ploy to keep us from donating to Barack.

      My friend, James, lives right by HQ and phoned them. He posted this yesterday, with permission, on the Obama Board after calling there. Please read it and pass it along.

      We are NOT paying for HER debt. The end.

         Hillary’s Debt Will NOT Be Paid By Obama for America.

         It is not legal to do so.

         I secured this information personally from campaign HQ in a phone conversation with the Finance Chairman In Chicago at 2:40 P.M. EDT today Thursday, May 8th. I was asked to relay this information onto the blog by the Finance Chairman.

         DONATE to Obama with Absolute Confidence.

         There is no need to worry that your donations to Obama for America will go anywhere else.

         None of the money you donate to Obama will be diverted to payoff Hillary Clinton’s debt.

         Kill Any Rumor To The Contrary ... and pass this along, please.

         A rumor started about this based on some loose comments by Tim Russert.
         Many here became worried and said they would stop donating if it was the case that HRC’s debt would be paid for by us. It Is Not The Case and it will not happen.

         Why did I call HQ about this? I called because many bloggers had/have posted that they will not donate to the Obama campaign if Hillary’s debt is paid for by us / Obama for America.

         James

      •  Correction. Credit goes to James. TPM's bad (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera, brein

        The ass-hauling was done by James and it was done by phone.  Credit where credit was due.

        As much as I love Josh and TPM, as much as we owe them big time for covering and uncovering the USAttorney and Alaska scandals, all it took was a simple phone call.

  •  thank goodness that is settled now... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    I actually wrote Obama's campaign telling them to please speak out about this and squash it.. How obvious a ploy to dampen the # of people donating to Obama and not going to work.. Donate without pause people and I know I will soon..  

    "Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes." Oscar Wilde- GO Cubs!

    by ebbinflo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

    •  I will, but not right now.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....I'm not entirely clear on which funds Obama can use where and when, and I most especially want my next paltry donation used against McCain in the general election - also the primary's essentially done.  I assume the money I give after the convention can be used for the general election campaign.  So that's when I'll be making my next donation.

      When can I start saying "President Obama"?  Is it too early?  I don't want to jinx it.

  •  Thanks for clarifying. Just a note: (0+ / 0-)

    With their new wealth since Bill Clinton left the White House, $10 million isn't really all that big a chunk of change for the Clintons.

    Ten million is a big chunk of change for anybody, up to and including Bill Gates. If you don't think so, ask him for the money, and add that he can't possibly mind, considering the big financial picture. It won't work. Bet you a nickel.

  •  He Should Keep This Topic In Public Discussion (0+ / 0-)

    It makes him look good, might help suppress campaign donations right now prior to a suspension.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:58 PM PDT

  •  But wouldn't she be damaged by accepting aid? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm just curious whether she would even be open to accepting that kind of aid?  

    If Obama & Team are the means by which Clinton receives such assistance (assuming it's done in a legal manner), and assuming it's offered with the highest degree of diplomacy and finesse that can be brought to bear . . . . would that not still be a loss of "face" for Clinton?  I'm just envisioning that such an arrangement could damage her in a couple of ways -- first, this could turn an even greater spotlight on the comparison and contrast between the management of the two campaigns (and the Obama team's superior fundraising).  Not that this hasn't already been analyzed and reported on, but it would simply continue to share that glaring spotlight on the Clinton campaign's miscalculations and weaknesses, and undermine her claims of superior experience, "ready from day one," etc.  Secondly, could this not subtly or not-so-subtly exacerbate unwanted gender stereotypes (damsel-in-distress needing rescuing) when the historic breaking-of-the-glass-ceiling aspect has been a centerpiece of her campaign?

    Though I'm an Obama supporter, I do find it difficult to imagine that she & her camp would think this would even be a good idea, especially from a practical angle where her future ambitions are concerned.  But then again maybe I'm projecting too much of my own personal pride & scruples on to her.

  •  Contributing to Clinton's private wealth (5+ / 0-)

    Well said.  She's been indulged enough.

  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    for this diary. I appreciate the effort you have taken to unravel this rumor and the applicable campaign finance law.  I questioned your sarcasm in another diary so I am even more grateful for this explanation.

    I would still say that based on my review of comments on various sites from low information voters like myself (I don't see that as an insult)that Obama's campaign should get in front of this rumor and address it if there is a viable way to do so.  Many small donors will sit on their donations until the campaign addresses this matter.  For many donors, an explanation from the campaign will assuage any concerns.

  •  What about the DNC? (0+ / 0-)

    I received a fundraising pitch from the DNC last week.  I replied to the sender and asked if he could guarantee that none of my potential donation would become a de facto contribution to Clinton's campaign should they decide to retire her debt.  I haven't heard back yet.

    1/20/2009 will mark the end of an error.

    by winstnsmth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM PDT

    •  DNC Would Not Give to Cover Primary Debt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera

      Would never happen politically, and I think it's illegal anyway.  

      I'm a little fuzzy on some of the presidential funding issues, because it gets in to the matter of public financing and such, but I know that politically there's no way in hell the DNC will spend money on Hillary Clinton's campaign debt even if they're legally permitted to do so (which I think they are not).  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll state right here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    again, that if it will help Obama, Clinton, and the party as a whole in the general election, I'll gladly give to the Clinton campaign to retire thier debt and get them on board with Obama as the nominee.

    Gladly, freely, and with a clear conscience.

    But only if asked by the Obama campaign.

  •  Clinton's have $100M. Pay their own damn debts. (9+ / 0-)

    Good grief!  Bill and Hillary have stiffed "hard working white" small businesses to the tune of $10M so far.

    Idea that Democrats should waste $0.01 on paying the debts of Clinton's vanity campaign when Clintons have $100M in the bank and income of $10M a year from Chinese investments of Yucaipa Corporation, his sweetheart deal with billionaire Ron Burkle...just freak'in ludicrous.

    How quickly we forgot how the Clintons are just so damn sleazy.

  •  Good, in Theory (0+ / 0-)

    OK here's the scenario:

    The superdelegates are turning, and by the Oregon primary will Obama go over the top -- that's a week from Tuesday. It matters little to the delegate total what happens anywhere else, but it's good to have every voter have their say. Even Kentucky, which makes West Virginia look like Vermont. I've got nothing against Kentucky, beautiful state by the way. Just sayin.

    So behind the scenes the Obama camp and Clinton camp negotiate the eventual bow-out and how the party will pull Hillary supporters back into the fold. Admittedly, some will need pulling, and Hillary is the magnet.

    So Obama could help her out by directing some money to her campaign, and admit to doing it, because he is truly a uniter and not a divider, and it's time to think about November and the winged monsters about to come out of Mordor.

    And Hillary will take the money, then work all-out for Obama knowing her chances of ever being president are probably gone forever, but it's for the good if not the very survival of the AMerica she knows and loves.

    BWAA-HAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Right.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:45:42 PM PDT

  •  Great Post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, foufou

    I won't be helping Clinton out, but this excellent post eases my mind and I'm sure many others. Best front page post in a while.

    "Microscopes are prudent in an emergency." -- Emily Dickinson

    by godotnut on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM PDT

  •  I'd clean her bathroom, wash her car, anything (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    to get her to quit.

    If I have to send her a small contribution, I'll do it -- not for her, but for the party.

  •  It appears limits dont apply to campaign tranfers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tdub, brein, foldingBicycle

    to transfers between campaigns.

    Section 441(a)(1) limits individual contributions only. But section 441(a)(4) says this about transfers between political committees:

    (4) The limitations on contributions contained in paragraphs
    (1) and (2) do not apply to transfers between and among political committees which are national, State, district, or local committees (including any subordinate committee thereof) of the same political
    party.

    http://www.fec.gov/...

    Can someone clarify where the limitation on transfers between campaigns is set in the law. Thanks.

    My layman's reading suggests that the Obama campaign can transfer to the Clinton campaign.

    •  Transfers For the Same Person (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brein

      Not transfers between different candidates.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Fact, Transfers and Contributions Are Not... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mash, brein

        ...the same thing.  Transfers happen between separate accounts for the same candidate.  Contributions happen between one candidate or campaign fund and another candidate or campaign fund.  Obama giving money from his campaign fund to Clinton's campaign fund would not be a transfer, it would be a contribution, and is as such limited to no more than $2,000 for the primary.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the clarification (3+ / 0-)

          It looks pretty clear that a campaign can transfer the funds to:

          1. party committees
          1. state committees
          1. another campaign for a federal office for the same candidate

          I am still looking to find the definition of "contribution" as you have spelled out. According to the FEC, a "contribution" refers only to transfers from persons to candidates and is:

          1. (A) The term "contribution" includes—

          (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit
          of money or anything of value made by any person
          for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or
          (ii) the payment by any person of compensation
          for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.
          (B) The

    •  Thank you, Mash (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mash, foldingBicycle

      Your comment is the first one that I have read on this site or others that actually provides and refers to federal election law.  

    •  Committees are different from campaigns. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brein

      Committees means like the DNC or the DCCC.

      •  committees and campaigns (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foldingBicycle, foufou

        According to the FEC a campaign is a political committe:

        (4) The term "political committee" means—
        (A) any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess
        of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures
        aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar
        year; or
        (B) any separate segregated fund established under the provisions of section 441b(b) of this title; or
        (C) any local committee of a political party which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 during
        a calendar year, or makes payments exempted from the definition of contribution
        or expenditure as defined in paragraphs
        (8) and (9) of this section aggregating in excess of $5,000 during a calendar year, or makes contributions aggregating
        in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year.
        (5) The term "principal campaign committee" means a political committee designated and authorized by a candidate under section 432(e)(1) of this title.

  •  Feels like a shakedown no matter how... (5+ / 0-)

    ...you look at it. It further reinforces the notion that the Clintons are parasitizing the Democratic Party. It looks like they were perfectly willing to turn their ambition into our debt. Can anyone see it any other way? Will anyone outside the GOP thsnk the Clintons for this? Will the Clintons lose fundraising depth for their future efforts?

  •  This hardworking white American... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, Mash, foufou

    ...is kinda tapped out right now, Hill.

  •  Only slightly OT. MA add ons elected today.... (0+ / 0-)

    Only slightly OT, because the subject is Hillary's on-going campaign The Mass State DNC met today to choose add-ons. There are two. Does anyone know how they were alloted?

  •  In other words, Obama backers would be giving (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, foufou

    Clinton "walking around money," except in this case it would be "walking away money." Hey, if it gets the fat lady to sing, by all means.

    •  Extortion (0+ / 0-)

      Extortion won't work with the Clintons.  The fat lady may promise to sing, but she'll just use the money to buy more crack.

      "Extreme violence has a way of preventing us from seeing the interests it serves." Naomi Klein

      by rlharry on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:37:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She can give herself as much money as she... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, foldingBicycle, Alohilani, foufou

    ...has, according to the Supreme Court.

    We all make our choices. She chose to spend $25 million of her own money.

    It's all about personal choice, right? She spent it. We don't owe it to her.

  •  At this point .... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, foldingBicycle, foufou

    and at any point it is overtly bribery . No deal !

  •  Not a hard choice. Back more and better Democrats (4+ / 0-)

    or fund the Clinton's retirement fund?

    Hmmm?

    I'm sure one of BiPM's one word answers would work. I better start researching that.

    ", syrup ,..., shit ,..., hotcakes." Meteor Blades
    John McCain

    by JugOPunch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM PDT

  •  $$ for Hillary (7+ / 0-)

    While there are underfunded schools and hospitals in this country, there is no excuse for helping a rich person like Hillary Clinton out of the hole she dug for herself.  The suggestion is ridiculous.
    It's just as bad as bailing out Bear Stearns, because it sends the message that the rich and powerful get help while us poor hardworking white and black and brown folks never get a helping hand when we need.  Screw Hillary.

  •  My decision, if I have to make one, (3+ / 0-)

    is not to offer up one red cent for Hillary's debt.  If she had taken out a loan, perhaps I'd feel differently.  But she chose to use Clinton money.  With so much personal wealth, I'll shed no tears that she's out a few million, relatively speaking, considering the scorched earth policies of her campaign.  Nope, no crocodile tears from me.

    Practice random acts of kindness.

    by Sally in SF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM PDT

  •  $$ for Hillary? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, foldingBicycle

    Helping Hillary out with her debt would be a lot more acceptable if she was behaving decently and stepping out of the race for the good of the Democratic Party.  But if she is going to hang around making divisive racist comments and whining about Michigan and Florida, then she doesn't deserve help from the Obama campaign or anyone else.  I will be very disappointed in Obama if he decides to help her financially, even if he does it with money that he raises specifically for the purpose.  Why should irresponsible behavior be rewarded?

    •   Amen (0+ / 0-)

      I did end up contributing to Chris Dodd to retire his debt. But that was another time, place, and situation.

      Thing is, I do feel very badly for the small vendors. Hopefully, the loss does not cause any to fold. Few things are as sad as seeing a business fold...broken dreams etc out there for the world to see. I suppose they should have been more shrewed. Certainly in Iowa they are experienced in these things.
      But going thru the list , people all over got stiffed. Sad.

  •  I can't believe this is even considered (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry, brein, foldingBicycle, foufou

    they made $109 million in the past 8 years or whatever, use $11 million to keep her campaign afloat, and we would be donating to get their fortune back up.

    She should pay off her own debt.  Especially since she had so much money in her senate re-election campaign and spent it all on running up the numbers rather than spreading the funds to democrats in close elections.  maybe we would have more in office if she wouldn't have been so greedy then as well.

  •  Oh but we need to raise money. (4+ / 0-)

    It's like palimony.  We have to raise enough money to allow the Clintons to continue to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

    Meanwhile, they keep racking up more debt calling Obama an elitist who doesn't appreciate the needs of po' white folk.

    Bill and Hill need the money.  They need their limo drivers, dammit!!  They don't know how to pump gasoline!!!!!

  •  This line helps me a great deal (3+ / 0-)

    Since the money would not be necessary to protect Clinton's viability for future campaigns, donations to retire Clinton's debt would really be contributions directly to the personal and private wealth of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    Yes, I will continue to contribute to Obama.  I was quite upset after reading the Huffington Post that Obama was in negotiations to help her out.  To think that my money which I gave to him to defeat her and the DLC would be going back to these two (Bill and Hill) DINOS, peeved me to no end.  

  •  Sorry, but no (5+ / 0-)

    While I have often thought, and probably said, "I would pay this woman to leave the race!" ... I find that idea absurd now that it could be a reality.

    If the Clintons can't spend some of their fortune to get themselves out of the hole they've dug themselves into, they are even more classless than I thought.

    Why on earth should "hard-working" democrats reward these multi-millionaires for keeping Obama from focusing on his race against McCain?

  •  Out of all the replies to this post (4+ / 0-)

    I have not seen one reply that would suggest Clinton is floating this nonsense herself so people will stop contributing money to Obama for fear it would go to Clinton. I would not put i past here.

    And for all the loons that suggest Clinton should be considered for VP, I would not out is past her to undermine Obama if she ws the VP so he would not get re-elected for a 2nd term which in her warped world would open the door for her.

  •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)

    I have wondered about this since I began seeing the first discussions of the topic around the time of the Texas and Ohio primaries.  I appreciate the fact that there now seems to be an answer.  

    It is amazing to me how even those in the MSM who are quick to disparage the blogosphere can blithly float this topic without even bothering to check on basic facts like the legality of such a move.

    Given Obama's decentralized funding structure dominated by small donors, it might be difficult for him to raise funds to retire the debt of a multicentimillionaire who accumulated that debt in the course of savaging their candidate unfairly, mercilessly, and without regard to the potential consequences to the party's fortunes in November.  

    Personally, I don't give a crap if she backs out or not, and I REALLY don't care if she has the funds to run for re-election.  I'd rather see the DNCC find another candidate for the spot.  (But of course, that isn't going to happen.)

    Clinton decided a long time ago to "go for broke".  She's gone broke, alright, both morally and financially, and broke is exactly what she deserves.

    "Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal." - Anon

    by Deighved H Stern MD on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM PDT

  •  I believe both parties usually have a fundraiser (0+ / 0-)

    after the nominee becomes clear. In 2004, such a party by the DNC (please correct me if I'm wrong) helped retire the debt of the losing candidates. You might remember the fundraiser that ended with all the candidates standing on the stage. That was the one. It was after the primaries and before the convention.

    That's really the answer - to have the DNC go to its big donors to clear any outstanding debt for all the candidates. Fundraising event, mailer, etc. An Obama fundraising email would be a good-faith gesture (though I doubt that it'd really raise much money), but the DNC has the donors to raise the money without angering the nominee's supporters.

  •  Sorry NO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    QuestionEverything1982

    My donations will go to Obama to win the GE.
    ALL of them

    Barack Obama will be President, John Edwards will send George W Bush to The Hague

    by vanguardia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM PDT

  •  What if she gave an emotional concession speech? (0+ / 0-)

    We know she will.  She'll apologize and we'll forgive her, mostly.  Her existing supporters have obviously stopped giving now, but that means that they have the capacity to still give some more.  I'd think they would be good for at least $10M.  That would pay Penn back at least.  And then some new contributors could maybe kick in another $10M.   The rest she would have to pay.  

    She has to return all the ge money she hasn't been able to use yet.  Can she return that now, and hope that some of that comes back as donations?

    everybody love somebody...

    by toys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM PDT

    •  I'll believe that when I see it (0+ / 0-)

      but I bet we won't. Clinton apologize? It isn't in her character. She's never wrong, you see. We're all wrong for not seeing her obvious superiority. We're the ones who are going to be sorry for f(#%ing up this nomination. Not Hillary. She's done nothing to apologize for!

  •  What About Mitt? (or Steve Forbes (or etc.?)?) (0+ / 0-)

    Why would anyone even want to help pay off any American oligarchs self-financed run for the presidency?

  •  Hillary's Supporters should pay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    The reason given for Obama to help out is that nobody wants to contribute to a failed campaign. So yesterday's Hillary supporters just don't want to pay for her dead campaign.

    But, why would someone who never supported her campaign want to contribute to it? Seems these people would see even less reason for paying off her debts. In fact, Obama's supporters could consider that their past contributions were wasted in fighting against Hillary, funded by not paying bills on time and by self-loans.

    I think they call this throwing good money after bad.

  •  Incentive to continue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo

    All this talk of helping her retire her debt can only give her the incentive to continue.  

    I am also seriously concerned about whether the ability  of this couple to loan money to the campaign creates an end around the campaign finance limits.

    Let me give an example.  Most of Bill Clinton's income is from speaking engagements.  He has disclosed the amount of income, but not the identity of those who have paid him this year.  Suppose I am a major corporation or wealth individual who wants to finance Hilary's campaign.  Why can't I give Bill $100,000 to give a speech or provide consulting advice?  The Clintons then loan $100,000 to Hilary's campaign.  Bill declares $100,000 in income, but then the Clintons fail to repay the loan.  They then write off the $100,000 loan as a loss, and as a result have no taxable income from the transaction.  In essence, what just happened in this example is that the corporation made a $100,000 contribution to Hilary's campaign, with no consequence to the Clintons.  

    Shouldn't we have the right to know where Bill's income is coming from this year?

  •  And there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo

    ...if you believe campaign finance laws were written to actually do anything. Look at what John McCain's campaign is doing as we argue over securing the Clinton's life they are accustomed to. McCain said he would go for public financing, borrowed against that assumption, then opted out. That is patently illegal and look how nothing is being done. Politicians created these laws to look like they were doing something about the corruption of campaign finance--"round up the usual suspects." I dont think Obama has a corrupt bone in his body, but if politicians decide there is money to be had doing something they wont blink for a minute getting it, laws be damned. I'm sure there are loopholes within loopholes that the Clintonistas are ready to exploit if they should decided to press the case for getting Obamacrats to pay for her to go away.

  •  Poor judgment here as well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo

    I am by no means an expert in campaign finance law, but it is my understanding that by structuring this as a personal loan--versus a bank loan--it must be paid off by the time her candidacy is over, i.e., the time of the convention.  If she had taken this out as a bank loan secured by some of their assets, she could have paid it off over a number of years.  Just one more error in judgment on her part.  Heaven forbid that she would be charged with managing the US economy.

    Ghandi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. "

    by FoxfireTX on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM PDT

    •  Not Really (0+ / 0-)

      Since it's a personal loan, it doesn't have to be paid back.  She can just forgive her personal loan, making it a personal contribution.  It's not all that uncommon for candidates to put in a decent amount of their own cash and then not pay themselves back.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a single $ for Hillary !! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zgveritas, foufou
    Why should we pay off her debt ? To Thank her for her negative campaign ?

    Apparently she raised " 10 million in 24 hours ", raising money shouldnt be a problem ..right

    When would we get rid of these beggers?

    If she is serious about paying off her debt, she needs to suspend her campaign, and ask her Hillbots to contribute.

    •  I think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oslo, ColonelKlink

      As i said in a earlier in this thread is that her campaign could list the names of the various vendors who are owed money, then an escrow-like account could be set up for those particular debts. We (donors) can then decide which specific debts to contribute to. I think that the small businesses who were contracted for campaign-related events should not be left to hang dry especially in this harsh economic climate. That, I can live with. Plus it will be good PR to the "hard-working" coalition just which candidate really has their back. But to contribute to a general fund where our monies will simply disappear into a gaping Mark Penn hole or worse Hillary's own bank account, that is a no-no.

      "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

      by zizi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo

    Having said what I just said above, will the same courtesy be extended from the Clinton camp if the shoe were on the other foot? Would the MSM tip-toe around the debt question as delicately as they seem to be doing for Clinton? Talk about Hillary being given too much rope and benefits of the doubt in this election cycle!!

    "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

    by zizi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM PDT

  •  I offered to send Hillary $100 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo

    if she dropped out before PA, but she blew it. If she drops out after West Virginia, I'll make it $50, if she stays in it longer than that, it's really not worth sending her a dime because she's just doing it to hurt Obama and the Party.

    You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by fetalposition on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Someone else commented in another diary (0+ / 0-)

    that Barbra Streisand can come to Hillary's rescue and have a benefit concert.  Made me laugh.

    "My beloved child, break your heart no longer. Each time you judge yourself, you break your own heart." -- Swami Shri Kripalvanandji

    by oslo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Charity would be better (0+ / 0-)
    Folks, if you really have extra money, give that money to a charity instead of giving money to multi-millionaires like Mark Penn and Hillary.

    Speaking of unity, her racist supporters would rather give vote to John McCain than look beyond the skin color and vote for Obama. So no point in extending our hand of friendship to them. We would win the GE, with or without the support of Hillbots.

  •  Not worth the effort (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlharry

    If Obama issued an appeal to help retire Clinton's debt, I suspect the response would be lukewarm.  Many supporters are giving him what they can, and given the negative aspects of Clinton's campaign, are probably not inclined to part with more hard-earned cash to transfer it to someone who has millions.

    That weak response would likely be interpreted as a slight by the same folks in the Clinton camp who are now claiming they'll vote for McCain.

    So at this point in the process, why pay the extortion fee?  

    Now, setting up some kind of reimbursement system via the DNC for small vendors stiffed by the Clinton campaign, and funded by an Obama-sponsored party effort, that could be worth something.

    Clinton '08 - Put a stake in it, it's done.

    by ColonelKlink on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:51:54 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      I made a similar point to your last sentence just a couple of posts above yours. I think the vendors can be helped. It may reap some nebulous dividends

      "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

      by zizi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •   Does her entitlement extend to my wallet? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    I don't think so.  Perhaps if she had bowed out at the first 5 million.  She can afford it.  That much is obvious.  

  •  Clintons have $109 million. Enuf said. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JAS1001, dawnt, alpolitics

    I'd rather have Obama give to progressive Dems campaigning for House and Senate, or for Rep. Jim McDermott's legal fund. He is being sued by Rep. Boehner on behalf of ex-Speaker Gingrich.

    Fund the Obama campaign, not the fear campaign. Fear feeds the dragon.

    by mrobinson on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM PDT

    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zgveritas

      She's not exactly going to have to start wearing cardboard pantsuits if we don't bail her out.

      CUMULATIVE TOTAL(GROSS) INCOME: $109,175,175

      Including, among other items:

      * Senator Clinton's Senate Salary: $1,051,606 * President Clinton's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250 * Senator Clinton's Book Income: $10,457,083 * President Clinton's Book Income: $29,580,525 * President Clinton's Speech Income: $51,855,599

      So she wrote herself a $10 million check, gambled and lost.  They claimed $110 million last year.  She lost one book deal worth of money.  That's all.

      I don't get why anyone should feel any desire or need to repay it.  Except as hush money to get her to get out of the race and shut up about Obama.  Which seems ridiculous, almost like election year blackmail.

      -9.25; -8.56 Obama-Sebelius 2008!

      by JAS1001 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We don't need your stinkin money...... (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  Do you REALLY think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wu Wei

    giving Hillary a cash injection would convince her to QUIT?  I guarantee you she would not honor the agreement, the same way she broke her promise not to campaign in the sanctioned states.  This is Hillary.  If she sees an opening, she takes it, regardless of the ethical prohibitions.  She is an opportunist with an addiction to this campaign.  As soon as people start giving her money with "debt settling" in mind, she will spin it to the media that there is a renewed surge of interest in her campaign, Obama's supporters are having buyer's remorse, blah, blah, blah.  The best way to handle this "never say die" opponent is to ignore her until she has no choice but to take her toys and go home.   Any attention we give her will simply be used to feed her delusion that she can still win.  Obama has stopped talking about her, Rasmussen has stopped polling comparisons between the two. A shift is taking place among media pundits, superdelegates, and Clinton supporters themselves.  Let's not do something stupid like give her campaign a shot in the arm right as it's about to die a natural death.

    "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson

    by delillo2000 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM PDT

    •  Hillary will never quit, just fade away (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delillo2000

      I guarantee you she would not honor the agreement, the same way she broke her promise not to campaign in the sanctioned states.

      The best way to handle this "never say die" opponent is to ignore her until she has no choice but to take her toys and go home.

      Very true. Hillary will not quit until the convention. Even if Obama gets a FL & MI-proof delegate majority, which could take months, Hillary would still keep investigating him and whispering behind his back, hoping for a knock out scandal.

      So I think the debt retirement is a fantasy. No one gives up a realistic chance at the presidency, even if it is a slim one. At this point Hillary's only hope is that political lightning strikes Obama, but that's been her only real hope for months.

  •  Great work! (0+ / 0-)

    I deeply appreciate this explanation.  So much utter nonsense has been said about this topic in the traditional media, it had my head spinning.  Thanks for the clarity.

  •  I would think this is not a job for small money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko

    donors. If Barack has a few thousand big money people who will do whatever he asks (and for whom a $2300 donation to Hillary is nothing) that would be a natural place to start. Small money people (like me) tend to not have a whole lot to give, and want their donations to go directly toward something they believe in. I'm assuming that someone who gave $2300 to Obama for the primary could also write a check to Hillary for $2300 for the primary.

    Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

    by Sacramento Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:38:51 AM PDT

  •  It won't happen and shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

    I seriously doubt Obama would risk alienating his base by requesting them to donate to Clinton's campaign as long as she continues attacking him and wastes whatever doations she receives by throwing them down the hole of this now pointless campaign.

    She chose to run, to run the way she has, and to put her own money into it for whatever reason she did.

    Do we need to compensate her for running a dirty campaign and using racist smear tactics?

    Do we need to cover her debts to the likes of Mark Penn?

    If we did would it buy the votes of her hardcore supporters planning to vote for McCain?

    I think the money would be better spent campaigning to convince uncommitted Dems, Independants and Republicans in the remaining races and GE.

    If Obama has a surplus from the Primary, it can be returned and used by his small contributor base as they see fit, including donating it to his GE campaign, the Party or whtever cause they like.

    Are you a big supporter of Golden Parchutes for CEOs than run companies into the ground?

    When harmonious relationships dissolve, respect and devotion arise; when a nation falls to chaos, loyalty and patriotism are born - Daodejing (paraphrased)

    by koNko on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:42:41 AM PDT

  •  Yes, a big thank you to DH ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    This issue seemed to be approaching near hysteria levels all over the blogosphere.

    Thanks for destroying this fable once and for all.  We needed it.

  •  Or the Asshole Clinton's could write themselves.. (0+ / 0-)

    another check.

    Bail out her campaign? Fuck her and Bill. I hope she loses the Senate too.

    "I would like to see less people go to church on Sunday and more people volunteering among the poor and hopeless"

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:55:03 AM PDT

  •  Blaa. (0+ / 0-)

    It makes me sick that it makes any kind of sense to donate money to Clinton to help get Obama nominated. What a world, what a world.

    God is in your spare change, your job is giving it to strangers. - Billy Jonas

    by Audri on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site