Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama to Pay Clinton Bills
Over the years there have always been stories about how people running for office and lost saw their finances in ruin and their debts run to the ceiling. It is because of these horror stories that many very well qualified candidates have stepped off the stage when they saw the numbers just didn't add up.
Now there are loud rumors and reporting that the Obama campaign will cut a deal with the Clinton campaign that would include paying off her campaign's debts. This raises a number of intellectual and emotional questions.
1. What financial incentive does Hillary have to get out if Obama will just bail her out?
2. Why should Obama supporters be saddled with paying for the losing campaign that did nothing but call them irrelevant latte drinker's and blacks from small states?
3. Even if Obama agreed to pay for her true expenses to the little guy, should Obama have to pay off her campaign's lingering debt to Mark Penn?
4. Hillary lent herself money, that would seem to be her own at risk capital, in light of that fact, shouldn't this debt be treated as her own "buyer beware"?
Clearly, this is only a few of the issues that this can boil in my mind but make no mistake about it, this is not about the money to pay the delivery service bill or the pizza guy.
The real issue is that if the Obama campaign does write Hillary Clinton an 11.5 million dollar check to pay her back for what she lent her campaign. Should this happen the right will spin this and MSM will pick it up as being nothing more than a political pay off to get her out of the race.
Besides, did John McCain pay Mitt Romney back for the money he invested out of his pocket in his campaign?
Comments (17)
If he were to do this (and I've seen no serious indication he will), the best way to do it would be to use his fund-raising abilities to specifically do so. I.e., don't use already donated money or money being donated currently for other reasons, but ask those of his base willing to do so to donate money to this cause.
May 8, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe someone could set up a dunking booth.
May 8, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or two.
May 8, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love this idea!
And I could think of several awesome variants...
May 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right? Only on the preconditions that Hillary make this request in the course of a nationally-televised concession speech, and that Obama contributors are advised to make fresh donations specifically for the purpose. Otherwise, nada. Even then, nada. When am I gonna stop kidding myself? I hate this idea and find it too condescending to even comment on. OK, so, not that condescending. But you know what I mean.
May 8, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh crap. I commented before noticing the dunking booth suggestion. Much funnier. I'll pay for the third one.
May 8, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, first of all, Thomas Edsall is an idiot. Second, EVERYONE should write to the Obama campaign and tell them in no uncertain terms that using the donations of millions of small donors to help settle the debt of a couple of multi-millionaires would be a huge slap in the face to Obama's supporters. I donated money to the Obama campaign to defeat the Clintons--not enrich them. Make sure to send them a link to the Edsall piece.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/big-rewards-await-clinton_n_100694.html
May 8, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Any action to pay off the Clinton's debts would seriously piss me off. Those debts, in large part, represent a particularly nasty, issues-free, character-assassinating campaign AGAINST the guy I supported. The last thing I want to have to think about is that my contributions somehow underwrote that ignoble enterprise. They have an enormous amount of money and this is just a cost of doing their kind of business.
May 8, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to agree with you, but keep in mind we didn't contribute money to defeat Clinton; we contributed money to elect Obama President and if the political realities are such that Obama has to at least in part "buy" Clinton's full support for the General then so be it.
We need to come back together now start looking at the fall and we are going to need both Clintons, their supporters and everyone around the country to work together to defeat the Repubs.
I will say though that Obama should NOT IN ANY WAY pay off the debt that she "loaned" herself.
May 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama shouldn't do this and he doesn't need hjer o drop out quickly either.
The point is that her remaining in the race now is probaby good for Obama:
- continues press coverage of him, leaving McCain on the sidelines for a little longer
- he'll need to campaign in these places, so running ads now is good for the general
- with no fear of losing, he can take the high road and be even more gracious
- letting Hillary hang on will assuage her hardcore supporters as they learn to accept reality
- It will be a good quiet period before the general election heats up
- Quietly work behind the scenes to mend fences, plan for the general, research appointments, push voter registration
In some ways, this is a nice golden moment for him. Ostensibly in the midst of a primary fight, the GOP can't really get going. And McCain is out of the spotlight.
So I don't see any leverage whatsoever for Hillary to demand anything.
May 8, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since Hillary has shown her netroots fund raising prowess, (10 million in one day after PA.)
She should spend the next two weeks raising money to pay down her debt.
/snark off
May 8, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won't do this. Remember Hillary's "How many angels dance on the head of a pin" statement.
There is some real questions of conflict of interest on this one. Bill gets payouts from foreign governments, Hillary in turn loans money to her campaign, they won't disclose lists of donors from Bill's various "work".
It is way too convoluted. Obama is not going to pay off Hillary's campaign debts just to be associated with "aiding and abetting" later on down the road.
May 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, let's all take a breath. Penn, your second paragraph starts "Now there are loud rumors...". The Edsall piece aknowledges that, and I'm paraphrasing here, it's not uncommon for a winning campaign to pick up the debts of another campaign. Obama's whole campaign has been run differently from the start. I see the practice of one campaign paying off the debts of another as part of the old boy, inside the beltway, network. Obama is trying to change all that and I just can't see him agreeing to it.
I think this whole thing started by the Talking Coiffed Heads discussing how Clinton could be persuaded to get out of the race. Paying off debts worked in the past, so someone threw that out there.
May 8, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she is suppose to be so tough and for the working class, she shouldnt take ANY deal.(I dont think Obama should offer it).
If only those working class(myselkf included) she thinks she represents could just get someone else to pay it off. Though their are plenty of rich kids, or well off parents that is, that do that for their Sons & Daughters at the drop of a hat (wonder why the kids grow up with no backbone???), I am not one of them.
You dig yourself in a ditch, you climb your way out of it. You will be a better person when you do.
I cant FATHOM why some people follow her. Its like "slap", "slap"...oh wait...here is one more "Slap"...in the face.
May 8, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Obama shouldnt offer her a "deal" at all. Its the equivalent of paying someone off. Her and her husband have money, let them do it themselves. He should just beat her flat out.
For the sake of the party, yeah, he could donate some cash her way, but at a time after the Primaries are done with. Not to get her to end the primary.
May 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a graduate student who gave the full 2300 for the primary, which I really couldn't afford and which was about 10% of my pre-tax income. (I don't have kids, so I can justify this contribution and just eat more beans and rice.) I would feel *utterly* betrayed by a pay-off to the Clintons. In the past, when big donors owned the party and called the shots, maybe they didn't mind shifting a million this way or that way to keep everyone happy and keep the game rolling. But this campaign is different - or at least, has been different. If the money I contributed goes to the Clintons (in any way, shape, or form) I'll never give another penny to a candidate - since it could end up in his or her rival's pocket. What's the point in that?
As for all the small vendors, I hate to say it, but they need to sue the Clinton campaign for back payment. We have contract law in this country and that's the right remedy. I feel bad for them - but at the same time, these are small business owners who knew (from January) that the Clintons were not paying their bills. I remember articles from February warning vendors to take "cash up front" when dealing with Hillary's campaign. We have to set a precedent here: cash up front or lawsuits to collect later, but the party can't be hit up for one candidate's vainglory. Anyway, the Clintons can afford to pay back the small vendors they ripped off but I can't afford to pay them back - and it wasn't me who ordered all those sandwiches!
As for the argument that we need to do this for party unity, party unity is a two-way street, and it's high time the Clintons showed a little, by paying their own bills and withdrawing with grace from a race that they've lost. They can afford it: their post-presidency has been the most appallingly lucrative we've ever seen. Shouldn't all the "hard-working" Clinton supporters pressure their candidate to do the right thing by American small business? How 'elitist' is it of HRC to expect me to pay back her debts? Talk about entitlement.
May 8, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is good to see that those who responded see the absurdity of paying back Clinton but the reality of helping her with "reasonable campaign debt" regardless of if that is what any of us donated for.
As to me referring to the "loud rumors," it is important to note that Edsall is not the only one pushing this idea. I heard similar talk on Dan Abrams' program last night and as this US News Article suggests,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/08/why-clinton-stands-to-lose-millions.html
there are other reasons to believe that this is all in line with her larger strategy of staying in until the bills are paid.
May 8, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment