Hillary Clinton Loaned Campaign $5 Million
Marc Ambinder has confirmed that last month, Hillary Clinton loaned $5 million to her own campaign.
Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton’s communications director, confirms:
“Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.”
That’s a pretty damning contrast to Barack Obama’s record-breaking $32 million January fundraising total.
Of course, as Ron Paul devotees can tell you, fundraising isn’t everything. Still, given Hillary Clinton’s name recognition, organization, and support, it’s a pretty embarrassing turn of events that she has to turn to her own money to support the campaign. If her fundraising is doing that badly, she’s really going to suffer between now and the very important March 4 primaries.
What’s damning is that our political system has evolved(degenerated) to the point that someone would even consider spending that much money to take on a thankless-low paying position. What price ego?
The number makes a certain sense to me. Look at their support. Trust fund elites going for Obama, working class stiffs for Clinton. While rank and file Hispanics are supporting her, I suspect the black middle class is being much more open wallet with him. Her single mothers probably match his college age kids.
Of course Obama is charting a new course in politics that disdains big money campaigns in return for hope.
Yeah, right. Why doesn’t Bill Clinton pony up with Kazakstan’s dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, to get some more money from shady Canadian mining financiers?
The Democratic “trust fund elites”? Hmmmm…I’ve never met any of those folks. Seems more of a Republican thing to me, you know, given the money and trust funds which are common in elite Republican circles.
And if there were such a group I doubt they’d be supporting the black junior Senator from Illinois over the former corporate board member, politically connected Senator from New York.
From the AP:
“And from an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from “maxed out” donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.”
Not a lot of for working stiffs out there able to pony up that $2300.
And another slight correction. Huckabee is selling “Hope” – Obama is selling “Change”.
Just sayin’.
And Hillary needs your change.
I swear that’s one of the most lucid observations I read in a long while. Huzzah!
In the interest of full disclosure I’m a DFH, but not a troll.
Something seems very odd to me. It’s no secret that she’s the DLC and media preferred candidate. Think of the ratings her impeachment will bring. That being said, where the hell is the money? Howard Dean proved small donors can be a powerful tool and a good indicator of the mood on “teh ground.” She doesn’t have that working for her. I’m not sure she’s really tried, though. Plus,I don’t think she is as good at responding to “teh troopz” on “teh ground” as Obama, Huckabee and Paul are. But the “top” of the Democrats are not hurting for cash-money-dollahs. Obama’s momentum is real and I kind of wonder if some in the upper echelon of the party and bi-partisan indulgence buyers are hanging her out to dry. I wonder if the Democratic party is having the same fits as the Republicans. The difference being that we keep our loud-mouth assholes out of national commercial syndication. . . oh, and 70% percent of Democrats are “Ok” with either candidates (a very unusual thing for us hippies.)
The damning thing is Obama is raking in all those bucks without taking lobbyist money. Of Obama, Edwards and Clinton Hillary was the only one to take lobbyist money. People around the country are voting with their wallets and overwhelmingly choosing Obama. If Obama runs away with the rest of the contests in February as he looks likely to then Hillary is in for a big problem come March. Which is good as I think she’s the weaker candidate anyway. I think Obama’s youth and charisma are a better match against McCain’s age and experience argument.
Loaned? As in invested? I wonder what she’s expecting for ROI.
It’s amazing how much money folks who only work for the government or in positions that feed off their government suction are able to accumulate, don’t you think?
Actually, much of Hillary’s money woes stem from the fact that most of her well-heeled donors maxed out on the first pass, while Obama has been getting a lot of small donations from average folks, who can then make more small donations.
If the GOP is trying to paint Obama as an “elitist” (the same thing Hillary is trying to do) that should tell you who they are really afraid of…
I think the trust fund babies tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. Kennedy, Rockefeller, FDR, Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, etc. High concentrations are found in the liberal areas of the north east and the S.F. Bay.
I have personally met five. Three liberals, one conservative, and one I couldn’t rate. I probably won’t be publishing these findings in a peer reviewed journal.
You’re probably right.