Hillary's campaign money issues? Stunt.

At least, according to ABCnews.

Linkage

So it turns out the Clinton campaign may not be so cash-strapped after all — at least not at this very moment.

After offering on Wednesday to go without paychecks to help save precious campaign resources, senior staff members on Hillary Clinton's campaign are in fact not going without pay during the month of February, ABC News has learned.

Clinton's campaign has been shouting from the rooftops all day about its online fundraising efforts since Super Tuesday

Figures as much.  It's kind of silly that she would have to resort to crying poverty to motivate her base.  The money she's raised is good, don't get me wrong, but it seems a crappy way to about it.  

Minor update:  I call this a stunt because a lot of folks did not buy the fact she was short on cash.  If the MSM picks up and runs with this, it may well damage her "credibility" as much as anything with Joe and Jane Sixpack.  While it did motivate her base to give in droves, it might backfire in the long run.  

•  Don't tip me.

  Tip your horse!

  by TheStormofWar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM PDT

•  re:Just Like Tearing Up

  it will only work once.

  by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM PDT

  •  re:The Thing

    that actually pisses me off is that:
    (a) someone in the Clinton campaign lied to reporters about the senior staff not being paid
    and (b) the reporter dutifully passed along the information, but (c) we're never going to hear about the Clinton campaign spreading lies here, because (d) the media won't follow up.

    They're all so cynical that for them it's just a game of expectation-setting and spinning.

    by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, the media is so easy on Clinton

      They won't even report on the lies you fabricated in your head.

      You and every winger agree.

      by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM PDT

      •  The earth logic

        is not strong with this one.

        by Caoilainn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM PDT

•  She raised enough money to pay her staff

  So that means she was lying about not having sufficient funds before?

  by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I'm not buying this stunt stuff.

    She was short on funds in January, raised a bunch since Tuesday, and remains short of funds once she repays herself.  Okie-doke.  Moving along.

    by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM PDT

    •  How much?

      She was short on funds in January, raised a bunch since Tuesday, and remains short of funds once she repays herself.  Okie-doke.  Moving along.
      

      Her staff's being awful quiet about that.  The last I read her campaign was saying "We raised a whole bunch!  How much?  Well we won't tell you that, but it was a lot,-trust me"

      which stinks to high heaven given that Obama's 7.2 Million figure is even on his website.

      so HAS she raised a lot or not?  And what the fark kind of "screw the little guy" move is not paying staffers when you can afford to write a personal check for 5 million to your own campaign?  How was THAT supposed to help her?

      by Magorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM PDT

      •  It's on her web site, too

        But, please, keep accusing her of lying.

        The Clinton campaign today announced that it raised more than $4 million online in the day after polls closed on Super Tuesday. It was Hillary’s biggest single day of contributions since the campaign’s launch.

        The campaign had set a goal of raising $3 million in three days -- and exceeded its target in less than 24 hours. The new goal is $6 million in 72 hours.

        "We are gratified for this tremendous outpouring of support," said Clinton Campaign Internet Director Peter Daou. "From over a million volunteer hours to millions of dollars in contributions from thousands of online donors across the country, Sen. Clinton's grassroots support is a key part of her campaign's success."

        In the past 48 hours, more than 35,000 donors have contributed to the campaign, helping Hillary keep pace with the combined fundraising power of Sen. Obama’s campaign, MoveOn, and Sen. Kerry’s 3 million person email list - to which Sen. Obama now has access.

        link

        by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:45:00 PM PDT

        •  well they've lied before

          Most notoriously yesterday when they leaked the "Hillary is isn such bad shape her staffers are working for free" story that was patently false.  (you DO know what they call "obtaining money under false pretenses yes?"

          Bottom line; I'll believe it when it is on their FEC filings

          by Magorn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM PDT

  •  Yeah.

    I think that the implication here is that she loaned herself $5 million dollars in January because she was so cash strapped, her staff volunteered to work with out pay until they became more solvent. They had a good fundraising day on Tuesday and some unnamed guy said that it was all a stunt. Therefore it must be so.

    Where has common sense gone?

    by Caoilainn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM PDT

  •  I just noticed we're UID neighbors, 72052

    I knew there was something special about you... - 72060  :)

    by kck on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM PDT

    •  Great minds...

      ...uh, join at the same time.

      by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM PDT

  •  welcome to jumpingtoconclusions.com

    Or rather jumpingtoconclusionsforthebenefitofmycandidate.com.

    Who knows if it's true or not.  If it really is a stunt it's a damn creative one.

    by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:31 PM PDT

    •  I would actually love it if it were a stunt

      which I doubt, but damn, interesting if true.

      by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM PDT

      •  I did kinda wonder when the fact of the loan

        leaked, because they run such a notoriously tight ship.  And you're right, if it's a stunt and they get away with it it's freaking brilliant.  But I figure this stuff has to show up on finance reports, so it's highly unlikely.

        by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM PDT

        •  and they're too good at this ...

          to be bitten in the ass by a leak.  I think they DID need the loan but had a well-executed plan to make us all wonder if they really did or not.

          That's just good campaign management.

          by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

        •  Remember right before NH

          There were all kinds of "leaks" about her staff shakeup.  Wolfson would be gone, Penn would be silenced...

          Who knows...

          by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM PDT

          •  Difference between leaks

            and wild internet speculation.  This diary, for example, is not a leak.  :)

            by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM PDT

        •  They don't have to file a report until after

          March 31st.

          by John Poet on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM PDT

  •  No candidate should be able to buy the nomination

    and that includes Barack Obama for the Dems

    AFAIK he is still outraising her but at least HC can continue her campaign during this first part of the election.

    And like always the rest is media and blog spin.

    p.s. Read that Hillary Clinton gained thousands of new supporters in the last few days .... She found a new source of support. Great news for the Clinton campaign. Since She has a huge and solid Dem party support campaign money should not be another problem until the general starts a new cycle.

    I am not surprised to read that many  of her supporters thought HC didn't even need campaign money. From following the anti-HC spin in the media and blogs re campaign money I thought exactly that myself.

    by FelisRufus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM PDT

    •  I have no idea what her actual finances are

      I'm just opposed to seeing accusations of her lying from people who similarly have no idea.

      Obama has more money, but with the remaining contests spaced out so much it might not matter.

      by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:08 PM PDT

      •  Yup.

        by FelisRufus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM PDT

•  Hillary supporters,

  You've been had!!!!  They make such a big deal that she's the candidate of the low-income voter but when they need a win they'll tap out their bank account with LIES!

  by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM PDT

  •  To claim LIES, you should have evidence

    You have none.

    by Partially Impartial on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM PDT

    •  Good news for us :)

      Hillary widening lead as frontrunner

      The latest Gallup tracking poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton widening her national lead over Sen. Barack Obama to 52% to 39%.

      http://www.gallup.com/...

      by phoenixdreamz on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM PDT

      •  Great stuff! n/t

        by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        Democratic preferences in Tuesday night's interviews -- mostly conducted before Super Tuesday election results were known -- were similar to Sunday and Monday night's interviews. Gallup Poll Daily tracking will not begin to reflect the impact of Tuesday's voting on national Democratic preferences until tomorrow.

        by jrooth on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM PDT

        •  Which I fully expect will show

          that Obama has hit his ceiling. Hillary did well on Super Tuesday too yanno ;)

          by phoenixdreamz on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM PDT

          •  Hillary did well? Not so much

            Considering Mrs. Clinton had a 20-30 point lead in the national polls for all of 2007, then managed no better than a tie on our national primary day, I'd say she underperformed.

            Why couldn't Mrs. Clinton seal the deal? The door is open for her to lose. It wasn't before.

            by Erik W on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM PDT

          •  I don't get the logic

            that what was essentially a tie, both in votes and delegates, would support a "ceiling" for him 13 points below Clinton.

            by jrooth on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM PDT

  •  hey dude, she raised less than half what obama

    did in January...

    by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM PDT

    •  Money didn't do Romney that much good

      he had it to burn, right? And..?

      by Lynwaz on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM PDT

      •  difference:

        Where the money comes from.  If you don't have donors feeding that cash flow (ie., boots on the ground, people feeling passionate about a candidate) it's not going to go far.  Obama didn't cut himself a check.

        by tbird12861 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM PDT

      •  furthermore...

        if money isn't everything, maybe Clinton should forego her upcoming loan to herself... let's let her run on message alone.

        by tbird12861 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM PDT

  •  Obama ones are the ones who got "had"

    I always thought she would have the resources to go on through PA.

    Obama people are just too gullible when it comes to news of HRC's "collapse".

    by zed on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM PDT

    •  I didn't buy it

      I gave to fund the campaign of the person I want to be president.  

      I have no illusions about the Clinton machine!

      by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM PDT

    •  Bell check? ---> *DING!* n/t

      by Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM PDT

•  A campaign stunt

  Whatever you say about the Clinton machine - they sure know how to play the media, get sympathy and bamboozle their supporters into feeling sorry for them.

  by there will be blood on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM PDT

  •  bamboozle?

    Come on.  The only people "bamboozled" out of money in this election cycle are Mitt Romney's kids.  

    Check that.  

    EVERY donor has been bamboozled this election cycle.  By the media companies, for whom this is a billion-dollar bonanza.

    by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

  •  If she lies to her own supporters

    now, what will she do to them and to us if she is elected?

    AND

    Have you noticed how Hillary loves to be the victim?  It seems to give her strength.

    by Blogvirgin on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:47:29 PM PDT

•  I donated

  yesterday, and it had nothing to do with crying poverty. I got an email saying the campaign was trying to raise 3 million in 24 hours, so I donated. They raised 4. I didn't hear about the paycheck thing until today.

  by mdsiamese on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM PDT

•  Astounding diary, well researched, plenty

  to read....

  by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:16:03 PM PDT

  •  Comments as Diaries are "In" These Days

    What the heck, given the quality of most diaries these days, more bad than good gets scrolled-off.

    by Mr X on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM PDT

    •  We need to update the FAQs. Post more

      crappy short diaries so all the other crappy diaries scroll off faster!

      by Joelarama on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM PDT

•  Announcing that your campaign

  is in financial difficulty doesn't seem like a good tactic to me.  It just doesn't.  And it only "works" if she manages to raise more money than Obama.  Conclusion: sometimes a cigar is a cigar, as Freud used to say.

  by Night Runner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM PDT

  •  Tearing up in a presidential

    campaign wouldn't look like one either.  Clinton knows her voters.

    by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM PDT

    •  Are you kidding?

      It's a way to raise funds, but it's not a good way to campaign.  If people smell a loser, they start abandoning ship--that's human nature.  The last thing any candidate wants is give any hint that their campaign is in trouble.

      by Night Runner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM PDT

      •  Sorry to say

        women are not the same as men.  

        by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM PDT

        •  I really don't know what you mean

          I'm a woman and I'm roughly in Hillary's demographic.  My reading of the loan announcement was that it's a sign of trouble, not just a cry for help.  She needs to be able to attract new voters to win this thing.  Proclaiming your own unpopularity doesn't do much in that way.  

          by Night Runner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

          •  I shouldn't say sorry to say

            I'm a woman.  I appreciate our nature of sympathy and empathy.  It's why we choose the careers we do (broad generalization).  But I think that Hillary is well versed in this.  

            Look at how this played out.  Yesterday, she loaned money, a few hours later Patti Solis (well liked among supporters) is going without pay.  Less than 24 hours later she's rolling in the dough and is back on top again.  They're playing the game hard!

            by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM PDT

•  right, SHE raised only 13.5 mil to

  Obamas 32 MIL in January, plain and simple. and how is it more crappy than to make fun of someone for money troubles and try to beat their loan from their 'personal fortune' (according to him)  mocking them and making money out of it, Oh Obama, so Noble...

  by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM PDT

  •  Noble enough

    next to your candidate.

    by bam bam on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

    •  well my candidate is cooler than yours!

      by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM PDT

      •  snark btw...

        by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM PDT

        •  I got the snark

          its one of the few subjects that I actually consider myself as an authority on.

          Everything else I just pretend to know.

          by bam bam on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM PDT

          •  ;)

            by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

•  The Politico

  was saying that the terms for the loan she made to herself in Jan were that she would pay the loan back within 48 hours of super tuesday.

  Guess those donations were for her loan repayment, not her campaign.

  by Dreggas on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM PDT

  •  Link?

    by canoeist on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM PDT

  •  I dont trust them, woflson this morning

    said there were no immediate plans to repay...

    by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM PDT

•  So this is a 'stunt'

  but the whole "Hey, gang, let's all go to our Macs and raise $5 million for Obama to rub her $5 million loan to herself in her face" thing was not a stunt.

  Mm-kay.

  by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM PDT

  •  These are all stunts

    And what matters is who wins the spin war

    by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM PDT

    •  Yup, well said

      by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM PDT

    •  damn, I hate to agree with you

      But I do.  

      by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM PDT

      •  Obama has taken campaigning to a whole new level

        of meta

        He is making it "cool" for young people to give $50 to a political campaign. An almost unimaginable achievement accomplished via Web 2.0 and college campuses.

        And once someone gives $50 once (or even $5) they are changed by that action and are MORE committed after giving $5 than they were before.

        by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM PDT

        •  PS - I am very grateful Obama's core message

          is essentially a humane liberal message because Obama simply does grok how to do effective mass communication in the 21st century.

          by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM PDT

        •  I'm going to wait ...

          and see how all of 2008 shakes out before I go judging the validity of a paradigm shift.

          My greatest concern about this election is it's ridiculous cost. I'm not at all sure it should be "cool" to spend $50 to help put TV ads on the air.  If I were a commercial TV ad rep I would, but ...

          by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:00 PM PDT

          •  The money itself is secondary

            and TV ads the money buys is NOT the essential point of this approach.

            It is the $50 donation that is the crux of this approach. By making that donation, the donor is making a commitment and joining a group. This approach is also advanced by social network pressure.

            Do you live in a large city? Stand on a street corner and look up at the sky. Stand there for several minutes. If you have a partner have him or her count how many other people look up too.

            That also is why having an online counter for donations will beat the crap out of an online fundraising drive that lacks such feedback. The donors are interacting with each other as much as with the target of their generosity.

            = = =

            As for the validity of the paradigm shift, Obama surviving Super Tuesday is rather compelling all by itself. Enough to win? We will see.

            But come 2012 EVERYONE will be doing Net 2.0 campaigns just as EVERYONE on our side adopted Howard Dean's approach to some extent or another in 2008.

            by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:57:14 PM PDT

            •  the money is secondary?

              No it's not.  Money is PRIMARY.  There are other ways to ask people to get involved.  Taking their money is old school.  Nothing innovative about it but the medium.

              by ThirstyGator on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:03:33 AM PDT

              •  Nothing innovative about it but the medium

                Yes, exactly right. Human nature has changed little in  at least 2500 years. (Vastly improved education? Yes. A much greater respect for everyone's human rights? Yes. But people are still people.)

                BUT!

                This new medium has considerably lowered the costs associated with getting people involved.

                When collecting $50 the "old way" the costs of collection exceeded the benefit. Not so with Web 2.0 technology.

                by Bill White on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:07:57 AM PDT

                •  marginally, at best.

                  Hip?  Yes.  Inexpensive?  Hardly.

                  by ThirstyGator on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:48:25 AM PDT

          •  PS -- Obama is also spending that money on

            TRAINING

            grass roots organizers across America.

            Check out that diary about Houston. The people who go through Obama's training camp will remain better able to be community activists come 2009 whether Obama is POTUS, or not.

            A subset of those people will acquire a skill set to use for school board reform, county board elections, grass roots campaigns to save green space, whatever.

            Shame on Obama if he spends today's $7 million on TV ads, but he won't. He will use a chunk of it to train people to be better activists tomorrow.

            by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM PDT

            •  training is a minimal cost

              relatively speaking.  The money goes into the pockets of the media corporations.  Sad but true.

              by ThirstyGator on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:04:29 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    I'm not even on your side, and I agree with you.  I'm happy Obama is doing so well financially, and I'm happy that Clinton's campaign remains a bit cash-strapped after she repays herself.  

    Stunts?  I guess.  Campaigns themselves are in many ways just long sequences of stunts.

    by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM PDT

  •  Not all Obama supporters own Macs.

    I happen to own a macBook, but not all of us do. I know plenty of Obama supporters who own PCs.

    :p

    by MingPicket on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM PDT

  •  Oh Yeah?

    I'm a PC/Windoze man.

    And don't you ever forget that Micro$oft saved Apple's ass.

    :-)

    by Mr X on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM PDT

  •  what rock have you been under?

    internet fundraisers have been a staple since John McCain in 2000. There were the Howard Dean bats. There have been those weird Ron Paul things (what's he spending it on, anyway?). Obama had an internet fundraiser that was tied to a theme--sort of like Ron Paul and Guy Fawkes day. I haven't been paying attention, but don't tell me the Clinton campaign never sent out e-mails saying they were trying to beat a deadline or have a little "telethon"--and if they haven't, they're not fundraising right.

    Asking for money because you've actually (or seemingly) run out of money is a little different--and a little risky, I think. I remember feeling some disappointment during the Dean campaign. Howard had made such a big deal of being personally frugal, and someone who was "fiscally responsible". So how did he go broke? And Joe Trippi, what did you do with my money?

    by JMS on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM PDT

  •  Macs?

    Hell no!  Linux!  Linux I say!

    Get that Mac crap away from me.

    by jrooth on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM PDT

  •  god, how disgusting.

    Crashing the gates is not a stunt. People-powered democracy isn't a stunt. And I own a Mac because it's superior technology: I'm happy it's cool, but I'm happier that it works consistently.

    You could apply this paradigm to my support for Obama: I'm certainly happy to be on the side of history at this moment, but I'd support him regardless of what the tastemakers think.

    Do you really want, BTW, to make Hillary out the shlubby John Hodgman-PC candidate? Not the best branding, IMHO....

    by timmyk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM PDT

•  that's fundraising.

  And that's politics.  Plenty of silly in this race from both sides.  

  by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM PDT

•  The mission? Stay viable until Ohio & Texas

  and pray that the Obama momentum does not escalate into an unstoppable train before then.

  That said, both the claim of staffers going without paychecks and the retraction of that claim will serve to fire up Obama's small donors.

  by Bill White on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM PDT

  •  re:Right

    If one can see through the fog and spin, it's starting to look a little like Guiliani's Florida strategy.  

    by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM PDT

  •  exactly.

    I think Obama should campaign HARD to get delegates and wins in every state until then... and proclaim victory loudly after every contest.  Every time Clinton says, "well, I didn't campaign there" she looks weaker, weaker, weaker.  Like she can't put up a fight in places like Maryland, Maine, Washington, and Louisiana.

    by tbird12861 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

•  Woo hoo

  Hillary has turned them into newts yet again. Curse you, Hillary!!!

  by jmknapp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM PDT

•  Now Rush Is Fundraising for her..

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

  by Kunicks on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM PDT

  •  Of course he would...

    ...he hates McCain and think how many new listeners he'll get spouting his idiocy if a Democrat gets elected? He's in it for the $$$ and the oxycontin! :)

    by Hedwig on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

•  It wasn't a stunt...

  Stunt is defined as masking the truth.

  Hers was.

  His wasnt.

  Just more lies....

  by fedorowiczj1 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM PDT

•  so she basically manipulated her supporters

  for a 'quick comeback' in the newscycle.

  ABC News here:

  One longtime Democratic consultant not affiliated with any campaign wondered if perhaps the whole thing wasn't a big stunt to garner media attention and look like an "underdog."

  "I'd take this revelation as a sign that they planned this whole thing," the consultant said.

  The source familiar with the situation also believes Senator Clinton will not need to loan herself any more cash. On Wednesday it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had given her campaign an infusion of $5 million back in January.

  by slinkerwink on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM PDT

  •  Yes, and Obama never manipulates his supporters

    for fundraising purposes, as we all know.

    by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM PDT

    •  Well... not to the extent of lying about

      being completely broke, which is what some people seem to think she was doing.  I disagree with them, FWIW.

      by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM PDT

    •  manipulate?

      or motivate?

      His campaign is always trumpeting how much they're netting, much to my chagrin. Should play his cards closer to the vest IMO.

      by phillyPete on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

    •  re:??

      Evidence?  Equivalence?  Are you going to offer some lame claim about Obama emails saying "the next few days are critical"?  And would that equate in your mind with the Clinton camp's apparently deliberate subterfuge about its being in financial straits?

      by deminva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM PDT

  •  Who is this consultant?

    "I'd take this revelation as a sign that they planned this whole thing," the consultant said.

    I would love to know who the consultant is and if they have a second source.  in the 24-7 news media and blog world, there is way to much reliance on rumor and unnamed sources.

    by arogue7 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:22:45 PM PDT

•  If she can't run ads

  in Ohio - TX and PA (expensive), she'll drop out. It's as simple as that. To run those ads are a million a piece a week, if she dips below those levels. She can't compete.

  She knows it - and Howard Dean knows it.

  by ZappoDave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM PDT

  •  You're right, but . .

    you missed the point.

    She is running a "Big State" only campaign.  The same campaign that Gore lost, and the same campaign that Kerry lost.

    Left Coast, Right Coast, and a few swing states like Ohio and Texas, although Texas is just for primary purposes.

    This is why I want Obama.  He would win in all the big Democratic States (Mass, Calif, NY, etc.), plus the swing states (Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc), and maybe a few southern states as well (Virginia, Georgia, etc).

    Hillary is going to only need money to try and win in Texas, Ohio, and Penn.  

    by egarratt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM PDT

    •  Georgia?

      You're smoking something big there.  Obama has no chance in Georgia. Zip.

      The only reason Obama won the southern states was the 88% black vote.  And the reason he won Kansas and Minnesota was the caucus format that disenfranchises families and seniors.

      by naus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM PDT

      •  I know what you're saying!

        Georgia wasn't a good example.

        But I got to believe a few of southern states will be in play.  They don't much like McCain, so I think Obama could get some of the evangelical vote in some of those place.  The stars would have to align perfectly, but it is possible.

        by egarratt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM PDT

•  Too much rumor being reported as fact

  This appeared on some webblog called the page and then gets repeated over and over again on blogs and websites all day.  Then when the truth comes out, the same blogs then say it was planned. ..
  Come on already. . . . we allow this to happen to all the candidates and all the issues.  

  by arogue7 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM PDT

•  A campaign in disarray

  lacking a narrative and too cute by half.

  by jre2k8 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:06 PM PDT

•  Actually... how much do you need to pay staff?

  I mean, even a huge staff doesn't have a big payroll for just a few weeks, in the context of overall campaign spending.  

  By far the lion's share of the money at this point goes for TV, paid marketing, yada, yada.

  Seems to me the weekly burn couldn't be more than a few hundred thou, at most.  So the fact that they can pay their staff doesn't mean to me that they've overcome their cash problems by any stretch.

  by Hlinko on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM PDT

•  Hey Fellow HRC Supporters, lets

  keep DONATING!

  by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM PDT

  •  I am. :)

    by mrogers2007 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM PDT

  •  Why donate--let Hillary use her own money

    If she gets the nominiation, I say let her show us she's all-in by using her money first....

    by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:38:34 PM PDT

    •  she doesn't have enough, i think the

      Clitnons are only worth something around 50mil, alot compared to most,but not Mitt Romney money...

      by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM PDT

      •  Let her use half

        before she comes knocking on my door...

        by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM PDT

        •  do you even support Hllary?

          why would she know at your door? Its so stupid for people to connect their personal money to donations, totally different ideas. Do you really want to set the precedent that only people with personal wealth can run for president. Listen to yourself..

          by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM PDT

          •  She set the precedent

            And check my last diary...

            by MKS on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM PDT

            •  that was a really nice diary...

              by rigso on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM PDT

•  They're just adopting the "Reality TV' techniques

  ...planted questions...fake cries of poverty...

  by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM PDT

  •  viral videos... blog hype...

    yeah, I totally see your point.

    by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM PDT

•  Rope-A-Dope

  Hillary Clinton is going to be tough to beat. She is very very good at campaigning.

  I want Obama to win but I'm under no illusion that it will be a long hard slog to the nomination for him.

  by londubh on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

  •  The Only Problem...

    we're not dopes.

    I support Obama, but I would love to see Hillary elected instead of a Republican if that's what it comes to. Hillary is not the enemy, she's just the opponent.

    by Mr X on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM PDT

•  Bad planning...

  if this was a stunt, did her high paid advisors think it up?  So she raised $4 million with it.  Nice work.

  Wait, what's that?  It motivated your opponent's supporters to double that? And it gave your opponent a media spotlight because of it?

  D'oh!

  Matt

  by Cixelsyd on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM PDT

  •  In the end

    No matter what the media has told us - especially at this point - the only place to keep score is on the delegate board, not at the bank.

    What matters is not who raised more money, but is there ENOUGH money to run the campaign the way it needs to be run?  Once you've maxed out your media buys, how much good is that extra few million going to do you?

    by ThirstyGator on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM PDT

•  speaking of buying stuff...

  “No, see, Obama’s contributions all came from the maintenance staff and interns,” say the naïve little zombies:

  Feb. 4: “Investment banks, commercial banks and real estate companies altogether have pumped almost $34 million into the presidential race, with Democratic leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama getting the most money. Based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission records, the Center for Responsive Politics said Senators Clinton and Obama have each taken in more than $5 million from securities and investment firms. Real estate has not been far behind, donating $4.8 million to New York's Clinton. Illinois' Obama has raked in $2.7 million. Hedge funds and private equity, a new, independent-minded source of funds, have given $1.3 million to Clinton; $1 million to Obama.”

  truncated from http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

  by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM PDT

  •  More fluff and bananas from Obama as usual

    I have never for a minute believed the hype that all this record-shattering fundraising is from hipsters at Starbucks clicking mouses. I have a feeling there's an ugly backstory here. Not that the pro-Obama MSM would even dream of looking into it.

    by Jim J on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM PDT

    •  90% of the donations were under $100 in Jan

      There are hundreds of thousands of donors. Some of those donors work for Investment Banks, the Healthcare industry, etc.

      by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM PDT

      •  sigh

        "But that's the party line, and I'm sticking to it no matter what!"

        Informed electorate, indeed.

        by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM PDT

        •  It's all a matter of public record.

          Sorry if you find the facts inconvenient. That Obama has massive grassroots support is undeniable.  That's where the "cult" meme springs from, remember?

          by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM PDT

      •  perhaps a fuller quote would help

        Since Obama supporters seem unable to click links....the article is about CORPORATE donors, not individuals who work for corporations. CORPORATE donors are the COMPANIES themselves.

        Notice the word CORPORATE as used in the story. (Jim J, how can you stand the stupid?)

        Corporate U.S. presidential campaign giving surges
        Reuters Monday February 4 2008
        By Kevin Drawbaugh

        WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Corporate America is pouring money into the U.S. presidential campaign at an unprecedented rate, with a torrent of donations coming from the businesses behind the subprime mortgage crisis.

        Facing a government crackdown over predatory lending and a troubled housing finance system, Wall Street and the real estate industry were among the top political givers in 2007, a campaign finance watchdog group said on Sunday.

        Leading all corporate donors in campaign donations as of the end of last year was investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission records, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

        The next four largest corporate donors were Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, according to the center's fourth-quarter preliminary analysis, which is subject to revision.
        Investment banks, commercial banks and real estate companies altogether have pumped almost $34 million into the presidential race, with Democratic leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama getting the most money, the center said....

        by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM PDT

        •  You are uninformed.

          From your article:

          The center's analysis of campaign giving by business sector includes donations by political action committees and donations from individuals giving more than $200 based on employment.

          Corporations can't give directly to candidates, but you're super informed so you knew that. Ooops. Not so much.

          by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM PDT

          •  doh

            I stand corrected. Hard to do when you've been such a wiseguy.

            However, I would like to know where to get the info you quote about the 90% under $100. I'd like to see where Clinton's donors stand, too.

            by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM PDT

            •  Peace

              Apologies for my tone. We'll be on the same side in November, I'm sure.

              by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

              •  You bet

                We're not far apart, really. Sorry for being a doo doo head. Just a little tired of the 'holier than thou' stuff, politicians being politicians. Not that you're guilty of it, but there's a lot around.

                I found this after you set me straight. It's the last contribution report from end of January.

                Clinton (1% PAC funds--eh...don't know what 'Other' is):

                Source of Funds
                Individual contributions $103,611,269 90%
                PAC contributions $959,719 1%
                Candidate self-financing $0 0%
                Federal Funds $0 0%
                Other $11,081,373 10%
                
PAC Contribution Breakdown
                Business $304,408 56%
                Labor $58,600 11%
                Ideological/Single Issue $181,484 33%

                Obama (holds the lead in individual contributions, 99% to 90%--not what I'd call a big difference):
                Source of Funds
                Individual contributions $101,429,472 99%
                PAC contributions $25 0%
                Candidate self-financing $0 0%
                Federal Funds $0 0%
                Other $741,170 1%
                
PAC Contribution Breakdown
                Business $3,250 26%
                Labor $0 0%
                Ideological/Single Issue $9,237 74%

                by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM PDT

                •  Yes, there's an element of holier than thou...

                  in the Obama camp, which is probably highly annoying. I imagine this comes from feeling like the underdog and the sense that there's something 'different' about his candidacy. In reality I have reservations about him, just as I'm sure Hillary supporters have reservations about her.  You get caught in the gamesmanship and suddenly the other side can't just be wrong, but evil.

                  I'm going to try to cut down on my snark. It's not really productive. It's just the opposite, in fact.

                  by Meursault on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM PDT

    •  Agree

      Notice how quickly the Excelon story went away (cripes, his campaign manager is from one of his big Illinois donors! no alarm bells?). And that little million dollar favor so he could buy his house. Saint McCain is getting bested by the Virgin Barry.

      by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM PDT

    •  hey, hey HEY!

      I like fluff and bananas!

      Regardless, this Obama supporter (who will vote for her if she gets the nod) never underestimated her ability to raise money - or pull off a surprise.

      by phillyPete on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for some truth injection.

    by mrogers2007 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM PDT

  •  Employees of companies gave.

    I work for a big bank...doesn't mean I'm "Wall Street"

    by Vote4Me on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM PDT

    •  OK, then...

      So, you have proof then, that Obama's contributions are coming from people who work in and industry, but Clinton's are coming from the companies themselves?

      You guys have that proof, right?

      By the way, if you bothered to click on the link to the Guardian article, you would have noted that the contributions in question were made by CORPORATE donors.

      Such a gullible, lazy electorate we have. That's how we got Bushed.

      by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM PDT

      •  I apologize

        I'm at work and didn't read carefully enough. The corporate comments are stupid.

        However, if you see above ('You bet'), you will see that O's and C's contribution profiles don't look too dissimilar.

        If a more detailed breakdown is available, I'd love the link.

        Forgive my hubris, everyone.

        by dark1p on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:04:57 PM PDT

•  GOOD!

  She helped Obama raise nearly 8 million dollars in a day. Thanks Hillary!

  by indiemcemopants on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM PDT

  •  People do realize

    she rasied 13.5 million in January? Soooo Obama raised more than half of that in a DAY.

    by indiemcemopants on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:28:06 PM PDT

•  Fits with the Hillary-is-the-underdog narrative

  The cynic in me says that, while the campaign may indeed be in need of money, it could be HRC's strategy to build the perception of her underdog status. Interesting to see how much the pundits buy it.

  by margeauxtex on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM PDT

  •  Anything to distract from the story of the

    sup