There will be those who post on these threads whose sole intent is to stoke up any potential divisiveness within the Democratic party. They will try to bait you and they are good at it. Some are McCain supporters; some are just idiots; some are both.
The interests of a Democratic victory are best served by ignoring them and their idiotic posts. DNFTT.
Clinton did a fine job. For some of her supporters moving to the Obama side will be tough. It would like a Boston Red Sox fan rooting for the Yankees. She took on the task of trying to jump start that process and took to it with her best effort. I thank her.
I do believe that she will continue to work for the issues that she holds dear and that if she stays in the Senate she will become one of the greats. I also honestly think that she can do more good there, spearheading legislative initiatives, than by sitting around as VP.
As to fundraising: people can donate to the cause of paying down her debt without buying stickers. Obama will help by likely making some calls to his bigger donors who have already maxxed out for him, to help her as well. These will not be appeals to the likes of us but more personalized to a more select list of contributers. (I read that somewhere but I forget where.)
I didn’ watch, but I’ve read some press accounts. She’s “suspending” her campaign. Apparently this has some legal ramifications, like she can continue to fundraise – money which otherwise would presumably go to Obama.
Case in point. On cue.
The other fund-raising tactic is an implicit quid pro quo: she has donors who cannot contribute any more to her but can donate to him and he has donors who have maxxed out to him but who can donate to her. Get his maxxed out donors to help her out and her maxxed donors may help him out.
Except that there’s nothing nefarious or underhanded about it. She needs to pay down her debt ($30-odd million at last count), and asking for Obama’s help in getting that paid down is legitimate. He has donors who are maxed out for him who can still help her out.
Forgive me if you weren’t implying that she’s only suspending to suck money from Obama’s campaign…I admit that I may be reading more into that than you intended.
Anybody who did would’ve lost, given that you certainly preceded me by showing your crass ass with your gratuitous, uncalled for personal insults.
You deserve no graciousness. You are a low-life scum. You’re someone else’s, old, flavorless, chewed up piece of gum that they spat out on the sidewalk, that I had the misfortune of having stepped in, and now can’t get your slimy ass off the bottom of my shoe.
And while you’re contemplating that, why don’t you check the time stamp on this post.
I’m not sure myself. Fundraising for a dead campain seems unethical to me. But then again, so does Obama paying off her debt with his funds – I imagine a good number of his contributors would be upset to find that their money was handed over to Hillary. And to pay for expenses incurred long after it was clear she had lost and was throwing money away. And even more especially because she loaned herself a lot of that money – so if Obama pays her campaing debt, much of the money will go right into her pocket and stay there.
So I can’t say I have a good solution to this, except that candidates who borrow money for their campains should do so at their own risk. If the DNC wants to give money to her, I don’t really have a problem with that – they are raising money for the party and can spend it on any campaign they want. But I have problems with one candidate using their own raised funds to finance another candidate.
Boyo Jim, I think other posters have said, upthread, that Obama cannot simply offer to pay off Hillary’s campaign debt - a violation of the single donor limit.
As for fundraising for a dead campaign - I think that’s more ethical than declaring bankruptcy, and leaving a lot of small vendors SOL for the debts the campaign racked up. As long as people know what the money is being raised for, I don’t see a problem with it.
ETA: I agree with your gut reaction that Hillary’s personal loan to her campaign shouldn’t be anyone else’s problem, but that still leaves $20 million in debts for the campaign to pay off, somehow.
I was nervous about how the speech started, but I ended up being satisfied by it. I think the recriminations have to stop now. The best thing to do with the hardcore Hillarey supporters is just leave themalone. Pestering them to get on board is just going to annoy them. Give them time and let them contemplate their decisions. I don’t think badgering them will be very productive.
I can assure you that it is very standard operating procedure in campaigns. Candidates send out “help retire my debt” fund raising appeals All. The. Time. There is nothing unusual or nefarious about this.
Remember, also, that Hillary probably has quite a bit in her General Election fund that she could not and cannot use to pay for anything in the primaries, including paying off her primary debt. That can go to Obama and the DNC in return for help with the primary debt.
Never mind…her general election fund must be refunded to her donors unless she actually personally gets permission from them each to use the money for other purposes.
Just because it’s SOP doesn’t mean it’s right. Though I suppose so long as the donors clearly understand what’s going on, the ethical issues melt away.
But… what if candidates formed a new, and separate, institution from their campaign committee (or whatever the hell they call them), specifically to retire debt after a campaign is called off? Maybe, such an organization wouldn’t be hamstrung by all the fundraising rules that go along with raising money for campaigns – limits on individual donations, etc. Because it would be clear to all that these donations wouldn’t be used to buy votes later when the candidate was in office. Has anyone tried such a thing?
Pretty much. It isn’t like anyone is imagining their campaign contribution is going to get Hillary elected, they understand if they donate now, its paying off debts.
I see a couple of problems with that proposed solution, Boyo Jim.
If candidates know that they will be able to recoup funds from a losing candidacy bid by using laxer fundraising limits, I think that it would have the effect of seriously undercutting existing fund raising limits. Candidates would have an incentive to over spend, I’d think.
Also, Hillary makes a good example why your thesis that, “they can’t buy influence” with such contributions to a laxer failed campaign debt retirement fund: She may not be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate - but her Senatorial position allows her plenty of scope for paying back favors all on its own.
ETA: I’m not accusing Hillary Clinton of anything, you understand, just using her position to illustrate how someone who has a failed campaign to pay off may still have a great deal of influence.
Having thought about this for 5 minutes, now it seems maybe a bad idea. Many candidates, Hillary included, will still be in some public office even if they lose their campaigns for higher one.s So such “debt retirement” institutions could be a back door to influence the candidates’ votes in the seat they already have.
So? Would shuffling the paperwork a little more eliminate the influence of money on pols’ behavior? Every time there’s a flowpath legally closed off, a workaround is immediately found, and sometimes the legalities just get ignored.
The only cure is to reduce pols’ *need * for money. The death of the requirement for the TV nets to give free advertising time in exchange for privatizing digital frequencies a few years back was the last real chance to make that happen, though.
