What $6.4 Million Can Do
Before I became a graduate student and mother, I was a nonprofit administrator, and worked with a wide variety of organizations. Each group had very ambitious plans, along with ample energy, ideas and commitment. What was in short supply, as with most nonprofits, was money. What we could do with more money, I always thought.
That’s why, when I heard of Hillary Clinton’s decision to lend her campaign $6.4 million dollars, I found myself shaking my head. While I’m an avid Obama supporter, I had believed that Clinton was a person committed to social change. If someone said that her run for the presidency was simply an ego trip, I would disagree and say, no, the woman has heart. When she decided to spend $6.4 million on what is now a lost campaign, however, I had to question my impression of her.
Certainly, she can do whatever she wants with her money. Her loan of $5 million earlier in the campaign seemed to make a bit more sense, given that she then stood a small but unmistakable chance. If she truly wanted to pursue social change, though, and improve the everyday lives of Oregonians, let’s look at what $6.4 million could have done.
The Environment: Clinton has tried to portray herself as more committed to the environment than Barack Obama. However, a tidy little sum of $6.4 million would cover the entire budget for 1000 Friends of Oregon for 6 years.
Lesbian, gay, bi, transgender and queer rights: Clinton has tried to align herself with the LGBTQ community, Ellen Degeneres and all. With a donation of $6.4 million, however, Basic Rights Oregon could pay every last bill they have for almost 7 years.
Women’s Rights: Clinton also tries to portray herself as the true feminist, and seems to pursue her candidacy as a singular effort to better the lives of all women. If she bowed out now, though, she could fund the National Organization for Women Foundation for over 12 years.
Health Care: Clinton is supposedly the health care candidate, proving her point with her recent visit to Oregon’s Doernbecher Children’s Hospital. Now, the hospital has an exceptional program, unique to the West Coast, to provide comprehensive support to families with a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit. With the money just lent to her campaign, Clinton could have paid for that program for an astonishing 90 years.
Unless Barack Obama self-destructs in an unprecedented conflagration, Clinton’s money will be a wasted investment. So, given that her candidacy will most likely last just a few more weeks, isn’t there a better way to spend the money?
|
May 10, 2008 |
Kristin Teigen | Comments (87 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Carl Fisher | May 10, 2008 11:40:05 AM
I'd gladly take 50,000 from Hillary Clinton since she seems to be tossing her money around. I just need a little to pay off my loans and maybe buy some more Wii games.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | May 10, 2008 11:48:39 AM
So it's come to this. A once promising campaign for President has devolved into an expensive mid-life crisis.
I can't help feeling sorry for her. Hopefully, at least, she'll go on to be a legendary Senator whose very name will cause Republicans to descend into inarticulate raging for decades to come. Just like Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: Jefffrane | May 10, 2008 11:49:21 AM
So having $12m is elitist?
It does reduce one's credibility in accusing others, especially others without your advantages, of being elitist, yes.
It's the same lack of credibility that McCain has, with his multi-millionaire wife, eight homes, private jets . . .
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 10, 2008 11:49:30 AM
This is on a level of (il)logic equal to criticizing Phil Knight for wanting to give a gazillion dollars to the University of Oregon. Clinton's dollars are hers to dispose of as she wishes. Knight--similarly. (The issue with Knight is his using the money as a lure to entrap the State of Oregon into floating bonds to help pay for Knight's latest monument to his ego...I mean, stadium.)
I could probably find some way to criticize Ms. Teigen over the way she spends her money, and then feel morally superior to her. And she could turn the tables on me.
I feel drained by the Clinton/Obama match. We're into endless overtimes here. I wish it would all just go away. But sorry, this is one Obama supporter who will not tell Hillary Clinton what to do.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 10, 2008 11:49:32 AM
This is on a level of (il)logic equal to criticizing Phil Knight for wanting to give a gazillion dollars to the University of Oregon. Clinton's dollars are hers to dispose of as she wishes. Knight--similarly. (The issue with Knight is his using the money as a lure to entrap the State of Oregon into floating bonds to help pay for Knight's latest monument to his ego...I mean, stadium.)
I could probably find some way to criticize Ms. Teigen over the way she spends her money, and then feel morally superior to her. And she could turn the tables on me.
I feel drained by the Clinton/Obama match. We're into endless overtimes here. I wish it would all just go away. But sorry, this is one Obama supporter who will not tell Hillary Clinton what to do.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 12:04:11 PM
Joel,
Yeah, I agree that she can do what she wants with it..I think I wrote something to that effect...but for someone who says she suggests she wants change, I was pointing out some other ways the money could be very well spent.
Posted by: Alex W | May 10, 2008 12:07:53 PM
Kirstin, it's a LOAN! A loan, not a donation. And that's not the only problem with your reasoning. If you are 'serious', as you choose to put it - and think that's a poor choice of word - about your interest social change etc., why are you not also raising the wider issue of the huge amounts of money raised for and spent on these campaigns?
Clinton, like many of her supporters, myself included, does not believe Obama will be able to make the changes that he would like to make. Now, the examples you've given, I sorry - and surprised - to have to point out, are examples of short-term, palliative, remedies to problems which require real solutions. You may think that's a good way for a formidable politician to invest her money, but I'm not sure you should think so except that it serves your purpose, of course.
Yours, with these examples, is a very cheap shot at what is at least an historic candidacy which no-one but Clinton and her supporters (of which, remember, you are not one) should calling an end - which is essentially what you're doing by criticizing her in this way.
Besides, even if you do not believe she is investing in America's future, it should have occurred to you that her political future may depend very much on her seeing this through until June. If you don't know why this might be, I suggest you google it or, better still, if you know a politician ask them and they will explain it to you.
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2008 12:16:16 PM
I'm a solid Obama fan but Alex does raise a legit issue - the vast sums raised and spent on both of these campaigns.
I was talking to a conservative friend of mine about politics last night over pizza and at the end of the conversation he said that it will be very interesting to see what kind of special interests Obama has taken money from. It's a legit concern. Weakened, IMHO, by the political realities which require raising vast sums from which ever quarter one can. But the fact remains that while Obama has done incredibly well raising huge sums from average citizens, he (like Hillary and McSame) has taken vast sums from special interests too.
We need serious, fundamental campaign finance reform in this nation in the worst way!! And sooner rather than later!
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 12:17:26 PM
One key reason that I'm an Obama supporter is that he does not believe the efforts of grassroots organizations like 1000 Friends, Basic Rights Oregon, or NOW are simply "palliative" efforts, but a key and undeniable part of the process that brings about substantial social change. The presidency isn't a dictatorship -- Obama knows that bottom up democracy is what it takes to create change.
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2008 12:19:26 PM
Posted by: Carl Fisher | May 10, 2008 11:40:05 AMI'd gladly take 50,000 from Hillary Clinton since she seems to be tossing her money around. I just need a little to pay off my loans and maybe buy some more Wii games.
ROFLMAO - I love it!
;-)
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 10, 2008 12:22:47 PM
Kirstin, it's a LOAN! A loan, not a donation.
Regardless of whether it is a loan or a donation, it is a waste of money. There were stories floating around that her campaign has lots of unpaid bills. It seems like a good idea, if that is true, to make sure they are paid. As for the National Organization of Women it represents a great idea, but the leadership has shown a willingness to abandon women, like those who have been killed and maimed and raped in Iraq and the mothers and loved ones who have lost husbands, brothers and other loved ones in an illegal war that Hillary endorsed and supported.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 10, 2008 12:39:39 PM
Hillary might want to save a couple of bucks for aspirin. Obama has an almost 100% white crowd in Bend cheering him on.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 12:40:00 PM
Despite my strong disagreement with NOW's endorsement decision (National Organization FOR Women btw), they have been very outspoken critics of the war. Also, disclosure...the organization is a former employer, one of those nonprofits I mentioned.
Posted by: Jefffrane | May 10, 2008 1:54:15 PM
I have heard speculation that Clinton needs to continue to campaign precisely because she needs to raise money to pay down her debt -- and that the Obama campaign is in a position to do just that.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 10, 2008 2:58:22 PM
If it's a loan, then presumably she'll be raising more money to pay herself back? How much does political fundraising compete with non-profit fundraising?
There are a couple of philosophical issues this raises for me. One is electoral politics vs. advocacy politics vs. philanthropy (including much smaller scale) vs. volunteerism as ways to address social problems and meet social needs.
E.g. every year I give a certain amount of money to non-profit advocacy or advocacy & service groups -- but maybe I should give it all to service groups.
Also, with non-profits, I have some concerns about the way that they construct themselves as in essence marketers of political or other services. There are a few in which if I become "a member" I actually have some sort of say in the governance and priorities of the organization. But mostly I don't. My role is to give money, period, especially for the D.C. focused groups. This leads to seeing activism & advocacy through consumerist eyes. It also I think leads to a certain fragmentation of progressive politics, through competition and turf-divvying. Organizational priorities overtake movement building and single issue focus (or identity-defining/ branding issue choices for ostensibly multi-issue groups) overtake cooperation, coordination, analysis & organizing and mobilizing around the interconnections of issues.
And then there is ideas/ "think tanks" question. Big progressive funders tend to want to give to groups that deliver services, whereas on the right, there is a willingness to fund analytical and ideological work that sustains their politics. (Bringing us back around to politics vs. supporting direct practical work on problems). Probably media questions fit somewhere in here too.
Bill's point about campaign finances is right I think. A couple of related dimensions are the abominably long political campaigns, and perhaps most pertinent to Kristin's main point, the rules about what can be done with political donations.
Let's imagine Barack Obama, if through whatever unlikely process Hillary won the nomination. He would be sitting on a big pot of $$. Now, he'd be allowed to keep it for future campaigns, and also to donate it to other politicians for their campaigns. But I think he'd probably be legally restricted from donating to the kinds of things Kristin suggests and the many other variants thereof, or from say something like endowing Air America or some other progressive media organization (extant or start-up). He could form a PAC, but I'm not sure about a progressive think tank or advocacy group.
Posted by: John Mulvey | May 10, 2008 2:59:15 PM
I'm not sure where you get off thinking other people have a moral obligation to give their money to the things you like.
It's the typical Obamite double-standard: You could call on your own candidate to put his money into funding NOW for 12 years instead of spending it on uplifting soft-focus ads. But you won't. Only Hillary Clinton has some special ethical obligation to you.
You also could respond directly when she points to her better environmental record, her better record on gay and lesbian equality and her better record on women's issues. If you could, you'd describe how your candidate is better on those issues. You don't, because you can't.
Now tell me again how your campaign is about bringing us together?
John
Posted by: Bpaul | May 10, 2008 3:00:43 PM
Admiral, "Hopefully, at least, she'll go on to be a legendary Senator whose very name will cause Republicans to descend into inarticulate raging for decades to come. Just like Ted Kennedy."
CRACKED me up, I love it.
I agree.
Posted by: julie | May 10, 2008 3:55:59 PM
Once again we are off on a tangent. Once again we are focusing away from Obama's lack of experience and lack of an action plan to carry about the great vision of change he preaches. Once again, you all have been distracted away from Obama's inability to lead this country. Youv'e been mislead and duped by this man.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | May 10, 2008 4:40:29 PM
This is NOT an endorsement of Hillary Clinton:
"Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists."
"Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report for the Journal of African American Political Thought and Action have zeroed in on the making of the Obama bubble:
'The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience.'"
"Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, 'Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.'"
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 5:16:10 PM
John,
I'm not suggesting that Hillary support organiztions that I like, but to those that further issues she purports are priorities for her. If she wants to further her social agenda, giving to organizations might do far more for what she suggests she believes in than campaigning for a few more mere weeks.
Posted by: admiralnaismith | May 10, 2008 5:24:39 PM
Clinton and McCain are just the latest examples of spoiled rich people attempting to buy their way into office. Their behavior raises the question, "is it possible to have both Democracy and rich people"?
A question at least as old as wealthy General Washington.
Posted by: DH | May 10, 2008 5:46:54 PM
Given Obama's inexperience at launching a campaign, at least compared to HC, he has carte blanche led a national campaign that will go down in the books of history as a new model. While not perfect, it has been incredible to watch it grow from the beginning. The people, the strategy and much of the fundraising have been spot on, intuitive and responsive. On the other side, a candidate who had much "built in", HC, has squandered every advantage, political and financial. It has appeared top heavy, unsure, corporate , tone deaf and usually a step behind. Bordering on the bizarre. It is approaching a tragedy. The rather far reaching and interesting theories as to why she would spend 6.4 million on a lost cause right now are rooted in a gut feeling by many people, regardless of political ideology, that the Clinton machine will always try to bend the will of people and reality to suit their personal needs. If you have to "win" on a technicality or a loophole no one else foresaw, is it really a victory ?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 10, 2008 6:06:16 PM
John Mulvey,
It isn't a double standard, it's a difference of opinion on whether Hillary Clinton still has a legitimate chance to win the nomination.
The premise of the piece is essentially that Senator Clinton is throwing good money after bad ("bad" only in the sense that what she's spent hasn't got her what she hoped, and "good" only in the sense of not yet spent).
Kristin said it's Hillary's money to do with as she wishes. She provided heuristic examples. If Hillary were to choose alternate uses for this money for social change, Kristin hasn't said a word about where she should choose to spend it.
I agree with Kevin that Alex has a legitimate point about the vast expenses of these campaigns, including Senator Obama's.
On "records," as far as I am concerned there is not much to choose between them. Nor on their actual policy positions. I intended to abstain until Hillary went too far with talk about "obliterating" another country. If I hadn't already voted, her USA Today statement equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans" would have reinforced my decision to vote against her.
No primary campaign is about "bringing us together" -- primaries are inherently divisive. Obama is articulating a vision of using the presidency, not the campaign, to bring people together. Whether he'll get the chance, and if he does, whether he'll succeed, we'll just have to see.
Personally I have two worries about that: 1) that he will compromise things that should not be compromised in the name of unity, and 2) that the feelings he has inspired and mobilized may be turned to cynicism if he doesn't live up to the promises or is prevented from doing so.
I have different worries about Hillary, if she were nominated. First there is the bellicosity. Beyond that, Jonathan Chait in the New Republic has what is in my view an acute analysis of her populism which I find all the more persuasive because it describes Bill Clinton's politics and policies as president very well too.
Also, I don't see much difference between the fervor that he inspires and that which Hillary inspires.
Both have been subject to unfair attacks, but I don't think in the same way.
While there was a period, particularly around Iowa and New Hampshire, when Hillary was being subjected to gross and unfair misogynist attacks and framing, they came primarily from Republicans and the media.
Unfortunately a section of Hillary's supporters have actively taken up Republican Muslim-baiting smears (including in this forum), and unfortunately some of her supporters with the collusion of the media have taken up considerable race-baiting, and most unfortunately of all, Hillary herself and Bill Clinton have at least played footsie with the race-baiting themselves.
However, I would accept it as fair comment that Obama passively took advantage of the misogyny. Neither candidate has done what one might have hoped in terms of rejecting identity-based attacks on the other one, in the common name of opening up opportunity to all that they each represent, and could both have represented together, had they chosen. That they didn't perhaps goes back to the inherent divisiveness of primaries.
I remain greatly worried that either Clinton or most likely Obama may end up being like Al Smith was in 1928 -- a historic first nominee (Smith being the first Catholic nominee) who is defeated in the general because the prejudices that prevented an earlier female or black nominee are still too active in society.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 10, 2008 6:07:02 PM
John Mulvey,
It isn't a double standard, it's a difference of opinion on whether Hillary Clinton still has a legitimate chance to win the nomination.
The premise of the piece is essentially that Senator Clinton is throwing good money after bad ("bad" only in the sense that what she's spent hasn't got her what she hoped, and "good" only in the sense of not yet spent).
Kristin said it's Hillary's money to do with as she wishes. She provided heuristic examples. If Hillary were to choose alternate uses for this money for social change, Kristin hasn't said a word about where she should choose to spend it.
I agree with Kevin that Alex has a legitimate point about the vast expenses of these campaigns, including Senator Obama's.
On "records," as far as I am concerned there is not much to choose between them. Nor on their actual policy positions. I intended to abstain until Hillary went too far with talk about "obliterating" another country. If I hadn't already voted, her USA Today statement equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans" would have reinforced my decision to vote against her.
No primary campaign is about "bringing us together" -- primaries are inherently divisive. Obama is articulating a vision of using the presidency, not the campaign, to bring people together. Whether he'll get the chance, and if he does, whether he'll succeed, we'll just have to see.
Personally I have two worries about that: 1) that he will compromise things that should not be compromised in the name of unity, and 2) that the feelings he has inspired and mobilized may be turned to cynicism if he doesn't live up to the promises or is prevented from doing so.
I have different worries about Hillary, if she were nominated. First there is the bellicosity. Beyond that, Jonathan Chait in the New Republic has what is in my view an acute analysis of her populism which I find all the more persuasive because it describes Bill Clinton's politics and policies as president very well too.
Also, I don't see much difference between the fervor that he inspires and that which Hillary inspires.
Both have been subject to unfair attacks, but I don't think in the same way.
While there was a period, particularly around Iowa and New Hampshire, when Hillary was being subjected to gross and unfair misogynist attacks and framing, they came primarily from Republicans and the media.
Unfortunately a section of Hillary's supporters have actively taken up Republican Muslim-baiting smears (including in this forum), and unfortunately some of her supporters with the collusion of the media have taken up considerable race-baiting, and most unfortunately of all, Hillary herself and Bill Clinton have at least played footsie with the race-baiting themselves.
However, I would accept it as fair comment that Obama passively took advantage of the misogyny. Neither candidate has done what one might have hoped in terms of rejecting identity-based attacks on the other one, in the common name of opening up opportunity to all that they each represent, and could both have represented together, had they chosen. That they didn't perhaps goes back to the inherent divisiveness of primaries.
I remain greatly worried that either Clinton or most likely Obama may end up being like Al Smith was in 1928 -- a historic first nominee (Smith being the first Catholic nominee) who is defeated in the general because the prejudices that prevented an earlier female or black nominee are still too active in society.
Posted by: doretta | May 10, 2008 7:44:32 PM
Actually, if this all plays out in the way it normally does in American presidential politics, Hillary's not spending her money now, she's spending Obama's money.
As of this week it's clear that Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination unless Obama forfeits it in some way.
Traditionally, that means negotiations will soon start for how Hillary is going to get out of the race. One aspect of those negotiations will be how much of her campaign debt the Obama campaign will underwrite when she discontinues her campaign and starts stumping for his.
If Hillary and her campaign stop attacking Obama and instead turn more positive/more toward attacking McCain, that will be the sign that negotiations are imminent or already in progress. If she does that, chances are the Obama campaign will cover her debts, including a good chunk--and quite possibly even all--of the money she lent her campaign.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 7:56:23 PM
Doretta,
Man, that is so depressing and gives me an even more unfortunate impression of her.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 10, 2008 8:24:31 PM
Hillary might want to save a couple of bucks for aspirin. Obama has an almost 100% white crowd in Bend cheering him on.
An all-white crowd in Bend does not count. Only all-white crowds in a place like Shepherdstown, West Virginia count.
The Shepherdstown crowd is entirely Godfearing working class folks. The Bend crowd consists entirely of childless creative-class doofuses who work at home, plus Californicators who liquidated their assets and moved to Oregon in order to drive up our housing prices, corrupt our youth, smoke a little weed, and try to impose their decadent life style on everyone else. They only like Obama because it allows them to feel smug and superior.
The Willamette Valley does not count, either, for the same reasons as Bend.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 10, 2008 8:28:48 PM
Also, those white folks in Bend and the Willamette Valley are all Buddhists, which is practically the same as Muslim, just like Osama Obama.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 10, 2008 8:28:57 PM
Also, those white folks in Bend and the Willamette Valley are all Buddhists, which is practically the same as Muslim, just like Osama Obama.
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2008 8:29:00 PM
I understand finding what Doretta said depressing. But I have the exact opposite reaction to it because the fact that it's even being discussed means that the end of this wearying, frustrating campaign is very near. I also think that what she described is political reality and I no more blame Hillary for following the inside baseball conventions of presidential politics than I do the men who created those conventions long before she became a candidate.
Posted by: Isabella , Canada | May 10, 2008 8:39:46 PM
Did it ever occur to anybody that Hillary Clinton is running for President because she truly thinks that she has the right vision and solutions for your country.
The press has been against her from the start and applied far more scrutiny to her than Obama.
She had to work twice as hard to show that gender would not go against her whilst Obama learned right away how to use his race to his advantage.
This has been an eye opener for me , never thought Americans could be so mean spirited and unfair.
This should be a democratic process to find the best candidate to run in the general election.
One vote and have it counted.
Instead you are mired down with an inept DNC and leadership ,never ending amounts of endorsements and let's not forget the mess with Florida and Michigan.
The enormous amounts of money being raised and bragged about , are quite frankly obscene.
I have great respect for Hillary Clinton , she is extremely smart and intelligent , and her knowledge of world affairs is impressive.
I can't understand that you would consider one of the most liberal and inexperienced Senators to lead your country.
He , who voted 133 times " PRESENT " when it was his elected duty to take a stand.
I was really hoping that after the last 7 years , you would get it right , yet once again you opt for likability over substance.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 8:58:06 PM
Joel,
Please tell me you're being satirical otherwise I'm gonna have to delete you for hate speech. Even then, some satire goes too far. Seriously.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 10, 2008 9:05:30 PM
Actually according to what was published on Huffpo the figure is $25 million in increments, considering the original $ 5 mil was never paid off. So basically Hillary is asking her donors to contribute so she can move the money into her personal account.
Posted by: Tara | May 10, 2008 9:08:44 PM
Kristin ,
You go to great lenght regarding Clinton's money , however you fail to address the large amounts of money Obama has raised and spent , actually many times out spent Clinton at times 3 to1.
The outrageous part , which is rarely mentioned , is that certain amounts of money find their way to districts where a delegate has come forth with an endorsement.
I believe Patrick Murphy received $ 30 000.00 after endorsing Obama. You call that democracy..???
Posted by: Bill R. | May 10, 2008 9:09:08 PM
The unravelling state of the Clinton Campaign, as seen in Op/Ed pieces around the country:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/smattering-of-stories-from-around.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Seeds+of+Destruction&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 10, 2008 9:09:51 PM
Joel,
Please tell me you're being satirical otherwise I'm gonna have to delete you for hate speech. Even then, some satire goes to far. Seriously.
Do him a favor, Kristin, and delete him.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 10, 2008 9:14:58 PM
Obama has been very successful in democratizing the funding of a political campaign. 1.5 million small donors. That's success, that's democracy, instead of going to lobbyists to raise money for him. The money he has given to allies to help them win elections has come, not from his campaign funds but a PAC he set up to help those people. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it. People donated that money to help Democrats get elected. If he an win Dem. allies by helping them win elections, there's nothing at all wrong with that. What he doesn't do is ask his donors to give money so he can pay himself back, which is what Hillary is doing right now, with growing failure.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 10, 2008 9:18:25 PM
Doretta: "If Hillary and her campaign stop attacking Obama and instead turn more positive/more toward attacking McCain, that will be the sign that negotiations are imminent or already in progress. If she does that, chances are the Obama campaign will cover her debts, including a good chunk--and quite possibly even all--of the money she lent her campaign."
*****
Actually this is wrong.This can't happen. It is illegal to transfer funds from one campaign to another for this purpose. What he can do, to help her eliminate the debt, is assist with fundraising new money. That's the extent of it. He might do that in order to win peace in the party. But right now that's all speculative.
Posted by: Tara | May 10, 2008 9:26:39 PM
Bill R.
Your comment is misleading , a lot of obama's money is being channeled through black churches and I believe there have been several investigations already as they are enjoying tax free status.
Without question his campaign has been very successful raising funds.
Let us not be too naive however , all candidates will owe something to somebody , whoever wins.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 9:36:39 PM
Man, is it just me or are Clinton supporters getting so desperate that they'll do anything (i.e. "he's gonna owe black churches) to win. Give it up.
Posted by: Kristin | May 10, 2008 9:41:57 PM
Bill,
Joel has proven himself to be rationale in other comments so I'm thinking that either pod people ate his brain or he was making a joke. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Tara | May 10, 2008 9:46:54 PM
Kristin ,
read my comment again and you will see that my last sentence was not relating to any particular candidate.
Obama supporters only see what they want to see and going by your last comment , certainly not so smart after all.
I am not supporting any candidate , I would like to think that I am entitled to my humble unbiased opinion.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 10, 2008 10:27:51 PM
Tara, it is a projection by Clinton supporters that Obama supporters think they are smarter. Look at Isabella's statement, quite typical of committed Hillary supporters. Clearly she thinks that she and others who support Hillary are smarter (better able to discern substance) than Obama supporters. The deeply committed on both sides believe their reasons best. It is much more frequent around here to find people saying "I can't believe you're supporting Obama" as if no reasonable or sane person could. On the other hand, it is more common to find Obama people saying things like "you are (or Hillary is) deluded if you/she still think/s she can win." These are both insults, though different forms. We might all do well to lay off of them.
There are numbers of stories around about the issue of Clinton's debts being one of several pieces of negotiation that would have to go on -- several I have read say that of $11 million Hillary owes, $10 million are to Mark Penn and that that is actually an obstacle for the Obama campaign.
Kristin, that all of this money is being spent by anyone in the ways it is, is a big problem for democracy in this country.
Also Joel has identified himself as an Obama supporter elsewhere & is being satirical. Notice that in talking about Bend he doesn't mention any old people? In the retirement hub of Oregon? It's just the old e-mail too flat for satire & irony problem.
It is true that Obama has a high ratio of small donor sourced contributions in his huge war chest. But they are the margin or part of it of how much more he has than Clinton. He also has taken a fortune from corporate interests & big money bundlers.
Isabella, of course it has occurred to me that Hillary Clinton is running for exactly the reasons you state, at least in part. My doubts and questions about her don't have to do with her motives for running. They have to do with whether I agree with her about her visions and solutions being the right ones. I don't -- actually I don't think Obama's are either, on some I'd give him an edge, on some Clinton, but both have very serious policy deficiencies from my point of view.
What made decide to vote for Obama was Hillary going too far with her bellicosity and willingness to throw around the idea of "obliterating" another country for campaign advantage. If that's the kind of "judgment" her experience has given her, no thanks. The increasing racialization of her campaign might have pushed me to vote against her too, if Iran hadn't got there first.
It is too bad. I don't know if the pressure to "prove" that "her gender would not go against her" as you put it contributes to her overly aggressive military positions, or if that's just what she thinks. But I completely agree with you that the press was enormously unfair to her, especially before New Hampshire (after which they backed off some). The ways they were unfair do show that sexism and misogyny are more acceptable in public than racism, in my view. Had she run a different campaign that might have been enough to lead me to vote for her, because as I say I'm not all that favorable to the policy positions of either of them, except by contrast to John McCain.
But in my case, anyway, Obama didn't win my vote so much as Hillary pushed me into giving it him. If she would say and do so much that I don't think she really believes to win, how can I trust that she's saying what she really believes that I do like? Especially when the record of the Clinton administration of which she was a part and offers as her experience acted quite differently on them?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 10, 2008 10:31:16 PM
Proving once again that regardless of who I support, my brain is cheese and unable to remember to hit the preview button.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | May 10, 2008 11:30:00 PM
Obama supporters only see what they want to see and going by your last comment , certainly not so smart after all.
Once again I am evidently an unintelligent, uninfomed, blind sheep herd member because I support Obama over Clinton.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 10, 2008 11:32:07 PM
Tara: "Your comment is misleading , a lot of obama's money is being channeled through black churches and I believe there have been several investigations already as they are enjoying tax free status."
You are making specific and unsubstantiated allegations. Proof, proof!!..
This is pathetic.. it's those "blaaaaaaaaaaack, churches.." So this is part of the new Hillary bumper sticker, "Vote White!" Keep those awful blaaaaaaaaaaaaaack people from taking over!
Really pathetic! It's over!! Deal with it!
Posted by: doretta | May 10, 2008 11:44:20 PM
Kristin, actually, I don't find it all that problematic. Politics is often mostly a matter of horse trading, when it gets down to it.
Bill, stay tuned.
Posted by: redcellpolitical | May 10, 2008 11:53:51 PM
HRC remains in the race because she has come closer than any woman in history. HRC remains in the race because she genuinely believes she can beat John McCain and though she said Obama could, she doesn't believe it. HRC is still in the race because something tells her Democrats and Independents and disaffected Republicans are more racist than misogynist. HRC is still in the race because if not her ops team, then a Republican ops team or a dissident Democratic team is searching hard for the one thing that will deflate or pop the Obama balloon, like he slept with white women, like he didn't only use drugs, he sold them, or still uses them, something anything that leaves her not an also ran but the person who can pick up the pieces and carry on the fight.
I am a bit pissed that the media (left right and center) got so tipsy on the black guy and the woman thing that they sucked up all the oxygen and everyone else suffocated from lack of coverage, or coverage of them as pathetic non-starters. I believe either one of these people could be an effective President in different ways and really a computer set up with maybe a vocabulary of 300 words with a few algorithms to prevent a nuclear launch could do a less destructive job than GHB has. But John Edwards was truly devoted to ending poverty in america and was willing to face it as a historic challenge that might even deprive him of spending time with his very sick wife, Bill Richardson blew both Obama and Clinton out of the water in terms of experience. Senator, Governor, Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador etc etc representative of the next ethnic majority in the US. Joe Biden... very experienced but a bit of nutter, even poor misunderstood and laughed at Dennis Kucinich (sp) deserved much better than he got. I think its a bit late to be worried about how much money has been raised and spent, or how much will be raised and spent before the convention. I believe both of these people could beat McCain if the wind is right. I am beginning to care not a bit about which one wins.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Karol | May 10, 2008 10:44:35 AM
Kristin,
You are so smart! What a great contrast for that money. I also find it interesting that she paints Obama as elitist, while she can afford 12 million over a few months for her campaign.