MSNBC just announced a disclosure from the the Clinton campaign that Hillary did what any of us ordinary people whose problems she shares would do — she loaned herself enough money to buy a couple of homes in the Hamptons. And since it was a hedge bet, banking on knockouts in North Carolina and Indiana, she’s in financial trouble. Again.
I suppose this should come as no surprise, since she doesn’t think economists’ opinions about economics matter. But I think it raises a fundamental question about how sound her thinking would be as a president submitting a budget to Congress. Yeah, I know she promises this and that, but is it just do as I say and not as I do?
Yep. It is. Her pandering did not pay off after all. Voters are fed up with her. They know now that for her, it’s all about her. She looked absolutely pathetic last night, vowing to move ahead and claiming a victory in a race that at the time was too close to call. It was like watching Paula Abdul comment on the wrong singer about a song he hadn’t yet performed.
Maybe the Bush-Clinton dynasty is over. Finally. I really don’t see how she’ll raise enough money now to cover her debts. She’s nothing now but the ruins of Ozymandias. It’s past time to stick a fork in her. It’s time to scrape the plate and stuff it in the dishwasher.
Incidentally, the same program points out that because of the Obama landslide in North Carolina, Clinton cannot now win even if she counts the votes in Florida and Michigan unless she also wins 75% of all the remaining pledged delegates and more than half the superdelegates. Could someone loan her $10 to buy a clue?
And then she stomped a kitten to death and drank its blood.
Seriously, Liberal, she’s using some of her own money to finance her Presidential campaign. How is that indicative of poor financial sense much less a character flaw?
Assuming that’s a serious question, it seems to me that there’s nothing in her worldview to stop her from getting the country deeper into debt while she gambles on world affairs. It’s a destroy now mend later mentality.
Then she’ll be out a small fraction of her and her husband’s income the past few years. I just like to see rich folk plowing their money back into the economy instead of using it as mattress stuffing.
Eh. We don’t know what her resources and/or plans are to pay herself back. Meanwhile, she’s spending her own money to get herself elected, or maybe she has some other agenda for continuing her campaign. We’ve heard that the Clintons earned over $100M dollars over the past few years. In what way has she put herself in “financial trouble”?
According to CNN, quoting her adviser Howard Wolfson, the $11.4 million is about equal to her earnings from book sales and her Senate salary in the last year. Her campaign is screwed, but she’s not going to have to hock her jewelry or anything.
There have been other examples of questionable financial management from Clinton’s campaign: the numerous reports of bills left unpaid at campaign spots in states all over the country. Link.
There were also reports that she defaulted on health insurance payments for her campaign workers. Link. I’m not sure whether that issue particularly was ever resolved (I think I remember hearing it was), but at least for a time, it showed some real fiduciary bungling.
On the topic of campaign finance, once Obama wins the nomination, what happens to the money he’s earned for the primaries? Assume he finishes with $20mil in the bank – can he use that in that general (I thought not), does he send me a check for thirty-seven cents to cover the unused portion of my contributions or does he have one hell of a pizza party?
I’ve noticed an utter lack of coherence about money as an indicator of political success, particularly from Senator Clinton’s campaign. During her speech on the night of the Pennsylvania primary, she bragged that she won despite facing a candidate who spent a record amount on the contest. (And similar comments from a supporter on the radio this morning.) They also bragged about the contributions she received in the 24 hours after Pennsylvania.
So, which is it; is money good or bad? Make up your mind, Senator.
Meh. She’s a very wealthy individual who gambled a large amount of money on pursuing a once-in-several-lifetimes career opportunity. Seems like a good wager to me, considering the Clintons’ healthy finances. Even if she loses the race and loses every penny she invested in the campaign, she still won’t suffer any change in her lifestyle.
I did pretty well for being such a poor politician.
That’s really what the argument there is. The day when money becomes unimportant in politics is the day when we all become assimilated into the Borg. Money is power; politics is all about power. How can you begin to separate the two? You can’t, that’s how. If we gave John McCain and Obama 100 mil and told them that’s all they had there would still be some other channels for money to make its way to the system. Honestly I think the way we have it set up now is pretty good. The rich can fund a candidate as can the people like me giving out 50 dollars at a time. I think it’s pretty good the way it is after we got rid of soft money.
Come on now. If our Congresscritters used their own money to pay for the earmarks, would that be a bad thing?
The mismanagement of her campaign that Knorf mentions seems a far bigger flaw than loaning herself money, money which she’ll make back when she writes her next book anyhow. And she’s a piker in this regard compared to Mitt anyhow. But I would like her to say “I’m just like you. Don’t you have $10 million to throw around?” at her next stop in a bar, though.