If you needed further evidence that Hillary Clinton was critically wounded yesterday, we now have this:
…[Clinton’s] campaign has just confirmed that she’d already lent her coffers $5 million of her own money in late January. A just-issued statement from her camp:
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.
Her advisers says she’s considering another loan because money is tight now — the mega-primaries yesterday were quite the financial drain. And although she won many states yesterday, including some very big states like New York and California, the victories weren’t resoundingly decisive enough — especially when you look at the extremely tight delegate matchup right now — to inspire a lot of new giving, Pat says.
Plus, many of her donors had already maxed out for the primary season and more of her money than that raised by the Obama campaign was pledged to the general cycle and can’t be used right now. Mr. Obama’s campaign boasted a haul in January of $32 million with a lot of new, smaller donors.
An honest assessment of this race would give Clinton less than a 25% of chance of pulling it out. I’d actually give her less of a chance than that.
For Obama supporters that have contacted me in email or made comments in both orange and green, I’m not interested in becoming a tool of the Obama campaign. I don’t care if I am raising expectations for Obama, I’m telling you what I think, which is, hopefully, why you read this blog.
McCain was low on cash too. It’s an advantage for Obama, sure, but not a decisive one. Clinton’s likelihood of cleaning up in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — the latter two being machine politics states tailor-made for her — and more important.
I still give Clinton a slight, slight edge based on what I expect will be superior superdelegate strongarming skills at the convention. But Obama’s big advantage is that he — unlike Hillary — grows on people the more time he spends with them. We’ll see how much that is true. If he wins the nomination, it will be because he earned it by making his way into voters’ hearts, and that is about the best way one can win. I’m rooting (and working) for it to happen, but I still think that a tie coming into the convention goes to Clinton — and we keep moving towards a tie.
Thanks to Major Danby:
I’m positive there’s some hipster foodies in SF who’d kill for that t-shirt.
Perhaps we can do better than a fungus:
No, you’re right, maybe stick with a fungus. He grows on you like blue cheese.
but time is on Obama’s side. McCain had time to recover from his cashless state–took out loans to self finance.
And, here’s a kicker that Hillary’s $5 million was to pay existing debt, not to pay her campaign forward.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
you are way off on the superdelegate scenario. There is no way in hell they will go to Clinton unless she has more overall delegates in the first place. It just won’t happen. Most of the superdelegates are elected officials and almost none of them benefit from a Clinton presidency, or even a campaign. They’d love to kill her off and they’ll do it in two seconds if given the chance.
She probably has more residual support among DNC delegates, but even there, Howard Dean runs that organization and is the deadly enemy of all things Clinton. She can’t win the superdelegates unless she is perceived as the rightful winner of the popular vote, and maybe not even then.
What went around comes around.
Now that is the sort of interesting discussion I’d love to see take place in the blogs and the media, but looking at who has supported whom (take Washington state as a sad example), I don’t see much reason to accept it on your say-so. Ideology and personal grievances aside, people endorse out of hope or fear. They hope to get good things out of a Clinton Presidency; they fear her terrible swift sword if they end up on the wrong side of a vicious battle. The Clintons have long memories and few compunctions.
If I think it was as clear as you suggest, I think I’d hear it whispered about more. To me, the fact that Clinton is winning the Democratic machine states and losing the non-machine states — h/t here to Jay Elias, by the way — suggests that she’ll have an advantage among the superdelegates, who come disproportionately from the former.
But I’d like you to be right. If you are, then Obama is indeed the favorite.
BooMan, here’s this TIME exclusive
Some Clinton Senior Staff Working Without Pay-this month
are they mouthing poverty to raise funds? Another tear jerker. Poor, poor Billary.
Oh cynical me on anything these two may do to pull a win.
Timing was interesting for her loan. That Hallmark Channel hour had to have cost a pretty penny. And from the NYT they’re saying she probably got 1 million viewers.
No money in bank. Not possible in Clinton world. In Huckabee’s world, not so much, but let’s face it, the empty coffer in a Clinton world is more telling then a close race.
Er…except the gardening ones. Oh and definitely anything that cuts wood or metal.
Seriously though…If she can’t raise $3M in 3 days, will that mean she has to loan it to herself again? Is there a fundraising cutoff coming up that us peons aren’t aware of?
Mitty Clinton
couple of questions: Her burn rate? the $104 millions raised in 2007, all gone!
is the $5 million self-loan part of the $13 million haul reported in January? Then she’s broke and struggling for cash. They’re seeking $3 million in the next 3 days
But look at the Clintons’ net worth. Did they leave the White House broke?
However, looks to me she can continue to self fund from personal hauls. Bill Clinton May Get Payout of $20 Million and then there’s that mining deal that fetched $131.5 million.
The $5 Million was not part of the $13.5 Million raised in January. It was in addition to it. Confirmed by TPM.
still short to finance 22 states plus going forward to perhaps April. Her donor base tapped out.
They spent a whole lot of money defending themselves against the Paula Jones and other attending messes. But since then they’ve made a lot of money on books and speeches. She can loan herself a lot of money, and it’s a show of faith in herself to do it.
Of course they’re going to poor-mouth for the next few days — they’re seeking donors, after all.
Just sent Obama some more scratch. Just felt like it.
that $5 million self loan of Hillary’s is more than 3 x the Obama’s net worth.
Well she’s got $35 Million more of her own personal cash that she can loan to her campaign. Don’t be surprised if she blows it all. It’s really personal to her.
If I remember right, she’s got bunches of cash for the GE that she can’t spend until then because she did $4600 fund raisers up-front ($2300 Primary / $2300 General) when Obama discouraged giving that much up front. He knew that if/when they get to the general, all the big donors would automatically pony up.
I wonder if the rules allow her to pay back her loans from that General Election fund if/when she gets there, or if she doesn’t make it that far, what happens to that money?
Right now she’s trying to raise $1 million a day for 3 days from small donors, but that sounds unlikely. She’s never been able to do that much with small donors before. Obama can, but not Hillary.
I doubt her campaign has anything in the bank right now. Obama’s already bought like $15 Million in ads for the upcoming states and I don’t think she’s done that yet.
Booman, when you say Clinton’s chances are less than 25%, do you mean that Obama will get enough delegates to make the convention a foregone conclusion, or that he’ll pull it out at the convention thanks to getting enough superdelegates to clinch? Or, to put it another way, how likely are each of the two above scenarios?
I think she is going to lose almost every remaining contest. She’s going to probably lose at least 5 or 6 out of the next 7, and possibly all of them.
She has way less money, no momentum, dwindling good will, no answer for the hope investment in Obama, and most superdelegates are elected officials that will face tougher reelections or enjoy smaller margins with a Clinton campaign.
The only chance she has is to win Washington, Virginia, and Wisconsin, and I put her chances of doing that at less than 25%.
She’ll drop out, despite what everyone thinks.
Yeah, I know about reliance on polls, but what to make of the latest national Gallup which has her up 13?
man, I would NOT want to be a member of the clinton family when that drop-out happens.
A fly on the wall, yes. or maybe on the ceiling where I can avoid the flying dishware and furniture.
maybe Bill should go buy some paper plates..just in case.
Good to know I’m not alone. Why do you think she doesn’t wait to see what Ohio and Texas do for her? For that matter, why not wait until Pennsylvania? There are a little under 600 delegates available over the next two weeks, and then almost 450 available on March 4. Even if she thinks she’ll lose the former, if she thinks she’ll win the latter (plus PA), why not just see it through? Abandoning one’s ambitions that readily would not be Clintonesque. But if you’re right, great.
She probably will want to wait to see how she does in Texas and Ohio, but that doesn’t mean she can win them after losing everywhere else in the intervening month and having to go into debt to just put up advertising and pay for jet fuel.
On her website she doesn’t even have state-specific pages for either Texas or Ohio yet. So she has no ground organization there yet. Obama does. Hmm.
Her ground organization will come from her endorsers. Ted Strickland has a pretty good ground organization, and he would like to be Vice-President. Seeing a list of the local endorsers for both of them in those states would be a real asset to a discussion like this. I will bet that she has more than he does. It sure helped her in California, where she had Villaraigosa and Newsom and Maxine Freaking Waters, among many others.
she’s not running a 50 state campaign like Obama. thank Gov. Dean for that strategy.
Anyone who’s paid attention to the mindless words I post, know that I was very doubtful of the 50 state strategy. I was doubtful that a Democrat could pull it off. In ’06, when “progressives” quickly sold out their ideals to put any old Democrat in the House/Senate, I caught a small whiff of what a 50 state strategy could be like, if people like Emanuel would just stop trying to be top-down about it all.
The Obama campaign has truly amazed me. I was told this morning about a lady visiting from Alaska who was part the Obama campaign’s offices up there. Alaska? I hear it all over. Field offices in the most random, most Republican of places…Obama has them.
Sen. Obama is proving Gov. Dean right.
By the way: hi, fabooj!
If she fails to raise money over the next while, you may have a point. And yet, John McCain was able to win without spending all that much until quite late because the voters are really paying attention this year. It’s simply not a given that she can’t even lie low for the most part for the next two weeks while concentrating on Ohio and Texas. Staffers will go without salaries if they expect plush government jobs.
Her argument now is that a few big states matter more than many little states. Watch this notion permeate media discourse in the weeks ahead. I think that she does focus on the states you mention, starting with Washington, but she doesn’t have to win them. And as for donors being maxed out, she will be squeezing people to squeeze their friends for money.
A lot of people don’t want to see Obama nominated, largely due to (misguided, IMHO) electability reasons. I don’t see why anyone would expect them to sit on their hands at a time like this, but maybe they will. Again, I’d like to believe your theory is true.
from your writings to the Good One’s ears.
I’m concerned that as the economy turns crappy, nostalgia for the Clinton’s 90s – dot com prosperity – will weigh to their advantage.
And the gender card.
It’s an insult to women – from all those who vote “It’s time to have a woman as president”
What’s with that BS? An uninformed voter is dangerous.
Thanks for the answer. I hope you’re right.
One tricky thing about Washington is that the Democrats are holding a caucus on the 9th (Saturday), but there is still a primary (non-binding) scheduled on the 19th.
Hopefully doesn’t mess anything up.
What the hell? The NYT just cut out the 2/9 caucus and added the 2/19 primary in their graphic. This is one of the most confusing things I’ve seen this year, and the competition is fierce. When are the delegates actually allocated? Can California hold another beauty contest in June? Wacky.
Yeah, WA state chooses on the basis of the caucus
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=266
see #22
I recall a discussion a long time ago before primary season began to the effect that Clinton’s problem was that although she started with a big lead, her max had a low upper bound, whereas the upper bound for her two chief competitors, Edwards and Obama, was much higher. I think that’s held true, though Clinton has in my opinion significantly raised her upper bound. Getting her hubby out of the race after SC was a very good decision on her part. Still, the longer the race goes on, the more the polls (if not the pols) are going to shift towards Obama. If the polls show him with a large lead over McCain relative to Clinton, the pols will put him in. We can’t afford another Kerry disaster.
hubby Bill Clinton was shipped off to campaign in California.
It’s nice to know that Obama doesn’t just have a money advantage but that she has a money problem that will be a part of every decision she has to make.
She’ll spend on Virginia and/or Wisconsin and then (and mostly) on Ohio and Texas. She’ll start spinning the other February states as “small” and not worth the effort and more or less concede them to Obama like Georgia. Now that her money woes are public knowledge though, the spin may not work.
These money woes give Obama a real chance to derail her by fighting her strongly in the pre-March 4 states she chooses to make her stand in, Wisconsin or Virginia. BUT he needs to win to get the momentum benefit going into Ohio and Texas – not just the benefit of using up her resources. That still means he has to pick off her advantage with women.
But even this doesn’t mean she’s out of it. If she wins whichever state she chooses (or both)and then can win Texas and Ohio, she’ll come up with more money to keep on until Pennsylvania. Money always appears somehow for people as well-connected as the Clintons.
Bloomberg.
They play tough, letting it be known they are really ready to go the distance on a day when the big news is that HRC don’t have the dough. Plus they take a step towards innoculating themselves against the worst case scenario, where she can try to overturn the stated will of the voters or force recognition of the MI and FL delagates. Good stuff.
Now, to start pushing hard on TX and OH.
And not taking VA for granted. I notice Jim Webb hasn’t endorsed.
And I don’t mean of the Obama campaign. They have plenty of good people.
But to me, you have been a Savior of the Netroots.
I had lost faith. The netroots had become the MSM.
But you, and a couple of others, were the only ones that looked realistically at Obama.
Most just all shared the same talking points. No substance, blah, blah, blah, you’ve heard it all.
So kudos to you, Ezra, Oliver Willis and a few others.
You GET IT.
Let me have one more ramble. We have a sickness in the net. They are places like TalkLeft, Avedon, Taylor Marsh. They will lie day after day about Obama.
I rip Hillary, but not every time she sneezes. I rip her for her Rove-like tactics and being the female Bush, only in for her last name, and flip-flopping nime million times on Iraq.
Today, TalkLeft called last night, the end of Obama. That is truly a sickness of hate. Avedon said, Obama would be the least likely one to listen to us. What in God’s name would even hint at that.
So I say to Avedon today, TalkLeft banned me for calling him on his lies, and I would puke if I read three words of Marsh.
So here goes. To Avedon, Barack Obama has met with our Progressive Group, three times that I know of. His office welcomes us. He met with us the night he left for Washington to begin his Senate term. And he did everything we asked. We wanted to fix what happened in the Ohio Vote.
His first speech in the Senate was on the topic, and he has sponsored bill after bill to correct the voting problems.
Now bloggers could actually look this up. But they won’t. Because they are blinded with their hatred.
Oh Yeah, Paul Krugman is getting there.
So Booman Tribune has moved to the top of my list of much read every day. Keep it up and the netroots will be rid of the blogs that want to be Karl Rove.
The liberal blogosphere is such a joke now. I poke into corners of the internet and see people openly laughing at places like TalkLeft or MyDD. We used to make fun of the raving lunatics on the right. Ha! Taylor Marsh is the liberal blogosphere’s version Michelle Malkin.
It kills me to see people who used to mock RedState or FR for banning people for not being part of the echo chamber, are doing the same things on their own blogs. People I used to think were smart or at least logical have turned into raving nutjobs. I certainly don’t want to be associated with them.
The Frog Pond and Openleft are two of the few places where some sort of sanity reigns. Even with AG. 🙂
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouff just sent out a plea for funds in response to Hillary putting $5 million into her own campaign. In requesting that suppoters “match” her $5 Mil right away, he even mocked her inability to raise the $3 Million she needs in 3 days.
Too funny.
Looks like the Republicans have an ally in Barack Obama, after all:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Obama_says_GOP_will_have_dirt_on_Cl_02062008.html
“Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House, a claim Clinton also made.”
And the Hillarians have been predicting the same about Obama. Predicting it does not make one an ally of the effort, as if that even needs saying. The question is: whose is the more credible prediction? I’m with Obama: I think that if Hillary had real dirt on him, we’d have seen it in South Carolina.
Here in Massachusetts we had three U.S. Congressmen who voted against the War Resolution but worked their asses off for Hillary in the Massachusetts primary. These so-called anti-war “patriots” are doing everything in their power to elect the candidate who is most likely to take us to war against Iran.