Is it fair to question to ask how she’ll be able to propose the particulars of a multi-trillion dollar budget when she lacks fiscal disciple in her own little camaign? If she spent 5$ million more dollars than she could afford, wasn’t she fiscally reckless? And if she was unable to survive without the additional 5$ million, wasn’t she fiscally naive? Did she have to saturate women with multiply redundant mailings of expensive glossy propaganda? If she can’t live within her means in her personal life, how will she live within our means as a nation when it isn’t even her money?
I’d’ve thought you’d support the idea of a loan, in that she’ll eventually pay back the $5 mill plus interest in cash, as opposed the the normal politician route of paying it back in favours and government contracts.
Anyway, it’s not really beyond her means if Bill can keep racking up the big speaking fees, which he can for years to come.
I don’t know if “fiscal discipline” really enters into it. While I’m sure the Clinton campaign could have been more efficient at least in theory, campaigns are hugely expensive by nature, and Obama has a lead in cash that she simply must minimize if she hopes to compete in upcoming contests. While I’m sure some could make some hay about how Clinton was financed by large donations from wealthy donors who simply can’t legally donate any more, Obama is financed from a much broader pool of smaller donors that could be tapped again and again, that’s a different issue than simply “discipline”, and in any event the laws and realities of campaign finance make extrapolating to general financial skills difficult.
What it does show is how things have swung away from Clinton and to Obama. This will attract interest for Obama and hearten his supporters, but it may get Clinton some sympathy from those who like to root for the underdog. We’ll see.
I would have favored her pulling out, really. If I can’t afford to do something, I pretty much have to find something else to do. What if she defaults on the loan? And is that how she’ll “sovle” national problems? Borrowing money to finance her pet projects?
ETA
It seems to me that we’re looking at this backwards: we’re saying she by-god has a destiny to run for president, and so going into debt is justified by this or that. Shouldn’t we be coming at it the other way around? Begin by asking what she can afford, and then spending money accordingly? Whether or not that means she can afford to run for president?
I’m an Obama supporter but I don’t take the self-loan to mean that she is fiscally irresponsible. She has the money available for her own use and she is choosing to use it. If she was racking up giant unpaid Mastercard bills on the behalf of the Clinton Campaign, I’d be worried.
What I do think it shows is a division between the “establishment” candidate with traditional big-money support and a more “populist” candidate raking in cash hand-over-fist in very small increments. A lot of people obviously voted for Clinton on the 5th but, for whatever reason, they’re not as inspired to flip her campaign a $20 like Obama’s supporters are.
So I think the question is less “what of Clinton’s self-loan” and more “Why did Clinton have to resort to a self-loan?”
Are you serious? Bill can pull in over a hundred grand in an afternoon, and not even a good afternoon.
I realize you don’t like her, but geez… put some ham in this sandwich.
Are you applying your same standard to Mitt Romney as well?
Unpaid staffers are generally the signs of a campaign in its death throes. I don’t think it’s the case this time but I don’t recall ever when a front runner had this problem. I don’t make much of it, her name recognition is there and she’ll be competitive even with a reduced ad budget.
I don’t think it has to do with her personal life, seeing as she has $5 million to lend her campaign. As far as her campaign not being able to budget accordingly, I doubt that’s a real concern for the average voter. It implies that she underestimated the cost and length of the primary season, and the legitimacy and strength of Barack Obama’s campaign. It also calls into question her fund raising strategy of maxing out wealthy individual donors, while focusing less on grass roots efforts, but the average person doesn’t know or care about all that.
Actually, I think her actions will convince more people to donate to her campaign. Her advocates will feel bad for her, so they will donate some money. I think this was a calculated move. Note, that she has raised $3 million or so in the 36 hours since this was announced. She makes a move that requires essentially zero-risk in terms of losing money, and is politically advantageous. Fist, she gets sympathy donations from small donors who feel bad she has to “spend” her own money, and die-hard fans who see this as a desperate move from a person so committed and determined that she will risk her own personal finances. It’s a selfish move that will be interpreted by many as selfless. She also realized that the underdog in this race has had an advantage. This action makes her the “underdog” in a lot of people’s eyes. If anything, her inevitability and front-runner status have worked against her so far, so she is trying to break out of that mold.
It’s not entirely out of line for her campaign to have budgeted for a contest that would be over on Super Tuesday- at the start of this campaign and even up until a month or so ago that seemed like a reasonably predictable result. They thought they could outspend and carry themselves on an establishment/experience wave while Obama and Edwards split the “change” vote, and lock it up on Feb 5.
If she wants to loan herself money, that’s her bidness. It seems like there is a large amount being raised online for her too, though overshadowed by Obama’s numbers.
What does it say to me? It says she’s got her hands full and she didn’t expect it, but they must have always planned on this as a “plan b” in case Obama hung on. Seems prudent to me as long as she can handle it.
An interesting quesion. Romney has loaned his campaign somewhere around $35 million.
I think you misunderstand what she’s doing. She’s not borrowing from any outside lender. Her campaign is borrowing from her (and her husband’s) personal savings. It’s a “loan” in that she plans to have her campaign reimburse her once they raise some more cash, instead of just giving it to them (like Romney is over on the GOP side). If she defaults, the only people out $5M are the Clintons, not some bank or private lender, and they could afford it.
It’s more like borrowing from your retirement fund to make imporvements on your house than getting a mortgage.
Taking out loans is the American way. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it. If she was at risk of living on the street with nothing but cat food to eat, then okay, maybe we could her financially irresponsible. But I see no difference between putting a $5 million loan towards a political campaign and putting a $5 million loan towards an fledging business.
Or he could just take a little trip.
Regarding the title question of this thread, I’d say the OP demontrates that people will read into this whatever they want to, to confirm what they already believe.
When I heard the news, my first thought was “Who the hell has 5 million dollars lying around?” Nice for her that she has the money to do it.
She didn’t think she had it but one day it just showed up on her coffee table.
She was paid $8 million for her book alone, and was a successful lawyer for quite a while. And I hear she invested well. 
Good lord, the messed up primary season has about everyone taking out loans. McCain had to buy a life insurance policy so he could get his.
If you want to wail on Hillary’s efforts, point to her staff ‘voluntarily’ going without pay this month.
The echo of Guiliani’s failed campaign is nearly deafening here.
Campaign workers are working for free.
She needed a loan for 5 million.
She is looking down the spiral slide saying, “No, No I don’t want to go!!!”
Obama raised over 7 million in under 48 hours.
He’d widely popular and people [read superdelegates] know it.
He’s entering the smokey back rooms of the party from the front door.
Read what you will from Hillary’s money problems. The fight is far from over - but I don’t see how it looks very good for her.