Clinton supporters: You are now donating directly to Bill and Hillary's bank account

[jgraz]

That's right. Now that Hillary has loaned her campaign 5 million dollars, your donations are going right into her pocket. Instead of giving money to a campaign you believe in, you're helping to refill the coffers of a multi-millionaire corporate lawyer and her multi-millionaire, ex-president, 6-figure-speaking-fee husband.

Even better, since Hillary chose to withhold this information for the past few days, those Super Tuesday donations you sent in ALSO went directly into her pockets -- without your knowledge or consent. How nice for you.

And it must make you feel even happier to know that one of the main reasons Hillary needed that money is that she's already paid $4.3 million of it to her chief campaign strategist, Mark "Blackwater" Penn, PR flack for corporate criminals, genocidal dictators and George Bush's praetorian guard.

It must be very satisfying to see your money so well-spent. Imagine what she'll do once she gets access to the US Treasury.

[lvx35]

1. Oh, look at that evil profiteering!

Its so INGENIOUS! She merely spends 5 million dollars, and if she gets any of it back, the 5 million is partially paid!!!

WE've been had!

:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

9. Well, you've certainly been had

What I can't figure out is why you seem to like it so much.

[lvx35]

No really, why don't you explain how that works.

she takes 5 million out of her own money, puts it into her campaign. It gets spent. She gets more donations. Do you think its gaining interest, and she's not going to spend anything on her campaign?

[jgraz]

19. I'd certainly like to know if she's earning interest on that loan

Or, rather, if your contributions are paying her interest on the loan.

The truly appalling part of this is that she hid the loan until Super Tuesday was over. Her contributors had no idea that they were not donating directly to her campaign, or that her finances were in such bad shape.

[lvx35]

26. What you're saying is that she wants to get a bunch of campaign donations

and drop out? I don't see it. And if she doesn't, she'll burn all of it trying to beat Obama's well funded campaign, so she doesn't get a cent back.

[jgraz]

54. Huh? That made no sense.

:shrug:

[lvx35]

58. What you're saying makes no sense.

IF Hillary to make her 5 million dollars BACK from donations nothing would have changed. Her campaign is still 5 million richer and she is right where she started.

[jgraz]

59. No, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!!

Gee, this is a productive conversation. :eyes:

Let's try this once more: Hillary spent $5 million more than she had, then loaned herself her own money without telling her contributors, then took in money to pay that loan back.

Now, her contributors are starting in a 5 million hole they didn't know was there two days ago. A significant portion of your contributions will go directly to Hillary and Bill, not to furthering the message of the campaign (assuming, for the moment, that there actually IS one).

[lvx35]

68. And what is the difference?

scenario 1) Hillary does not loan the lemonade stand $5, Joe contributes $5 to the lemonade stand. Hillary and her lemonade stand both have $5.
scenario 3) Hillary DOES loan the lemonade stand $5, Joe contributes $5 to the lemonade stand, which pays back Hillary for her loan. Hillary and her lemonade stand both have $5.

no difference whatsoever.

[jgraz]

70. In scenario 3, Joe's money goes to Hillary, not the lemonade stand

And if Joe has no idea that the stand is in debt, Hillary is asking for his money in bad faith.


BTW, is there some reason you skipped scenario #2? :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

330. This is a razor-thin, but not insignificant point.

While it is pretty cut and dried that there is a zero net result, the issue really isn't money after all.


Basically, the real contention is that if someone wants to buy their way into office due to a shortage of 'support', should they be reimbursed, and need they inform their supporters, or not?

That about sum it up?

[jgraz]

334. Yep, you nailed it

I'd just add in the semi-skeevy class warfare component of asking middle-class voters to reimburse a millionaire for her poor financial management.

Of course, this is probably all moot since it appears that the whole loan story was just a dodge to gin up more donations.

[The Doctor.]

335. LMAO... ! That would be a clever dodge... but VERY short term.

The negative fallout of admitting to a 'losing' status would quickly devour any short-term boost.

I would also imagine that anyone who didn't know how to pinch a penny wouldn't find themselves budgeting out her campaign... even her.

[jgraz]

336. Read the responses. It actually worked with her supporters.

[truedelphi]

243. Thank you. I am always surprised how

Weird this place can be.

i dislike Hillary but what she is doing is one of the options that any and all candidates have.

And should she end up with more money than five million and for whatever reason drop out, (Highly unlikely but just so those gunning for her understand the reality) the money has to be donated to a non profit, and or put into another campaign coffer (For instance her Senatorial coffer)

Tiese things are highly scrutinized, and I am sure that Senator Clinton is aware of the scrutiny she is under.

[libbygurl]

280. Wow, you can see all this happening without proof of it?

Just on your say-so? 'Cause the millions she's getting won't be spent on the campaign? Like, wow, I'm convinced.

Great argument there. You want to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn, too?

[jgraz]

283. Sell you a bridge? Sounds like you've already bought into an even riskier endeavor

But please continue to ignore simple facts. Hillary is counting on supporters like you.

[libbygurl]

287. 'Simple facts' that came out of your imagination? Uh, okay. Will ignore them. Bye! nt

[Recursion]

62. Except that current donations won't help her campaign

They'll pay back the loan she gave her campaign.

[pnwmom]

101. No, the loan doesn't have to be paid back right away. n/t

[jgraz]

145. A simple accounting trick. Campaign contributions will pay this loan back.

[pnwmom]

67. Her supporters ARE donating directly to her campaign, as you well know.

The campaign has various charges against it, including a debt to HRC. But any donations now are going DIRECTLY to the campaign.

[jgraz]

71. So how will her loan + interest get paid back?

Where will that money come from? The more you donate, the quicker Hillary gets her $5 million back.

[pnwmom]

72. If I were donating to HRC, I wouldn't mind her loaning her own funds to be

paid back later. Why should I? It's just evidence of her commitment to her own campaign.

But you've failed to address my point: your claim that any donations would be going DIRECTLY to her and not her campaign is patently untrue.

[jgraz]

75. The difference between my wording and yours is an accounting trick

Now that she's made the loan, any donations will help restore her 5 million dollar bank balance. Before she disclosed the loan, her supporters were donating without being fully informed as to the possible uses for their money.

How much more will she loan herself without immediate disclosure? How can you be sure that your contributions will not be used to retire another undisclosed debt?

[pnwmom]

77. What is wrong with her using donations to pay back loans that were

used for valid campaign expenses?

She had a temporary cash flow problem which she solved with her own money. Big deal.

[jgraz]

80. The part that is wrong is her lack of disclosure

Waiting until after Super Tuesday to disclose the loan is pretty shady, to say the least.

The rest of it is just a bit unsavory ... asking middle class donors to help replenish her million-dollar fortune. It would certainly make me think twice before contributing.

[pnwmom]

92. Both candidates are wealthy, and they both ask for donations from

people who make far less money. You're splitting hairs here.

She complied with the law on disclosure. There's nothing "shady" about what she did.

She has to pay herself back eventually, because she isn't allowed to just GIVE money to the campaign -- she's limited by campaign finance laws.

Your OP is just a blatant attempt to mislead people, hoping it will reduce donations to your opponent's campaign.

I don't have a preferred candidate, but some of Obama's supporters' tactics have really begun to get to me.

[jgraz]

98. So how can Romney contribute millions to his campaign?

Is he somehow violating campaign laws? Are there different laws for Democrats and Republicans?

The simple fact is that she overspent and got her ass kicked in fundraising. Now she's losing and she had to reach into her own pockets to save her bacon. And her choice was to keep her supporters and the general voting public in the dark as to the true state of her campaign.

Sure it's not illegal, but it stinks nonetheless.

[pnwmom]

100. He'll have to get paid back too, eventually. n/t

[jgraz]

113. You do understand what a "contribution" means, don't you?

Will you be getting yours back? No.

Self-financed means exactly that. Romney is spending his own money to finance his campaign and he won't be getting it back. Ever.

[pnwmom]

297. Your ignorance is showing. Romney LOANED $35 million to his campaign.

It wasn't a gift, although that word has often been used loosely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/romney-dumped-35-million_n_84395.html

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney loaned his campaign a total of more than $35 million in 2007, according to the most recent filings of campaign finance reports.

In the past quarter alone, the former Massachusetts governor pumped $18 million of his own wealth to financing his candidacy. That personal contribution helped bolster his fourth quarter fundraising total to $27 million, well beyond the $6.8 million raised by his competitor and GOP frontrunner, Sen. John McCain. The figures, it should be noted, were tallied at the end of December when the political dynamics were very much different.

SNIP

Romney, the former CEO of the private equity firm Bain Capital, is said to be worth $250 million. The $35 million he has used on his presidential campaign does not include what he lent himself during the month of January. That amount -- should Romney stick to his self-financing pattern -- should push the total figure for personal wealth spent over the $40 million mark.

SNIP

[jgraz]

310. Ha - it took you almost 24 hours to find that info

Many news articles list it as a donation or contribution. It's still a bit unclear, but I think someone finally found a credible source saying that it's a campaign debt.

You didn't know any better when you made your original posts, so get off your high horse.

And no, it never has to be paid back, but it's just as disgusting when Millionaire Mitt uses these sorts of accounting tricks.

[pnwmom]

327. It took one simple google. "Mitt Romney" campaign loan.

I hadn't bothered before because I thought you would check it and correct yourself.

Unlike you, I wouldn't have posted unless I knew the facts. It's a matter of campaign law, nothing new.

I only cited one reliable source in the follow-up, but I could have cited dozens. Despite what you say, there is no remaining question about it. Here are a few more links, including one to Romney's own page.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-04-romney-fundraising_N.htm

Romney's lead is based, in part, on the substantial loans he's made to his campaign, including $8.5 million from July through September. The third-quarter loan represents virtually all the cash Romney has on hand to fight for his party's nomination.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/mitt_romney_pre.php

Rivals say presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (R) is preparing for his biggest self-financing campaign loan yet--some estimate between $20 and $40 million--to be delivered in what could be the final competitive month of the primary season: January 2008.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q3/mitt-romney/

Candidate Loans, $8500000.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/First_Quarter_Receipts

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President announced it raised $23 million in total receipts for the First Quarter ending March 31, 2007. The Campaign opted to raise no general election funds and raised $20.63 million in primary contributions. The total includes a $2.35 million loan from Governor Romney.

[burythehatchet]

318. The problem is public disclosure

An extreme example: Hillary charges a 24% interest rate on the loan and a loan originaion fee of 100,000. As a supporter, one would want to know that a portion of their donation is actually financing an debt instrument. A publicly traded company would get busted, hard, if it did this type of transaction and got caught.

[The Doctor.]

333. I doubt they're that stupid.

Charging interest on the loan to her campaign is well outside ethical boundaries. I'd be surprised if it were allowed.

Either way, such an act would put a lethal harpoon in the hands of the opposition.

[mtnester]

179. Let us talk more simply..she does not have to pay back the loan EVER if she does not want to

A guy running for Mayor in Bwahhaahaa, Ohio loans his campaign $500.00 to buy signs or literature to start up, cause no one knows he is running yet. There is paperwork that has to be filed quarterly, at the local BOE, and it shows this loan, and the outstanding debt plus all contributions, expenses, etc. Any individual contributions below $25.00 (made up number but close) do not have to list the donor's name (this is why that number is so popular for local contest fund raisers, you don't have to mess around listing donor names, just the grand total contribution from fund raiser X)

This loan can stay on the books for as long as you have the actual campaign open (Smith for Mayor). Let's say the mayor gets elected. He can, if he has enough leftover funds, pay back the loan. He can also, if no leftover funds, write off the loan. He can pay back part, all or none of the loan. He can keep the loan on the books for years if he likes, he still has to file at least annually, even if there was ZERO activity in our out of his campaign. The loan is in its purest form..interest free.

Let's also say the mayor loses. Same exact scenarios apply.

Loaning funds to a campaign, large and small, is not a big deal, and is done all the time at the local, state and national level.

Stop making this out to be a profiteering move..it is not. And talking circles around it changes nothing either.

But I am sure finding out how loans to campaigns work is really not what you are interested in are you?


Meh.

[jgraz]

184. Nobody said anything about profiteering

What I said is that the fact that this is a loan and not a contribution means that she intends to get her money back. And she will be restoring her personal wealth from your contributions.

[mtnester]

190. Circles

I can reason and I know you can...read what you wrote again.

Restring her personal wealth....if she would have waited a day or two, she would have had the 5 mil...whether she loans it or gets it through contribution is irrelevant. Like I said, she does not have to even have it paid back....ever

And you did talk about interest on the loan upthread, so some discussion was held about her making money off this loan. I believe the OP is actually about Funds going straight to her bank account.

You cannot slough off simple checks and balances in accounting here. The funds go to the campaign...the campaign either pays her back, all or part, or NONE. THe loan is an expense..nothing more or less.

[jgraz]

193. As has been said before, money is money

If she ever pays herself back, that money will come from her contributors. Today, Hillary can still count that 5 million dollars as part of her personal fortune because you, her contributors, have been involuntarily committed to paying her back.

[murbley40]

213. No!

Very simply,if I contribute to Hillary's or anyone else's campaign,that contribution is GIVEN to the CAMPAIGN to be used to pay the debts incurred by that Campaign. The loan to the campaign is a debt incurred and she is perfectly in the legal rights of the campaign to pay it with CAMPAIGN FUNDS made up of contributions from me and others. You are just trying to turn supporters against her by trying to say that she did something dishonest. And she is not yet losing and that is really what you are worried about.

[bvar22]

199. That reminds me of a Ken Lay (Enron) scam.

Keep the Sucker Money rolling in while secretly cashing out.

Hey!!!
Has anybody seen "Kenny Boy" hanging out in the Clinton Boiler Room?

[Yael]

205. It is eerily reminiscent...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

136. Hypocrisy — Bill Clinton recently criticized candidates who self-finance

Hypocrisy — Bill Clinton recently criticized candidates who self-finance

He railed against the Supreme Court for blocking some attempts to limit the influence of money in politics.

“We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”

And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy.

“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7548.html

[libbygurl]

279. It's Hillary taking out a loan for Hillary's campaign, isn't it? nt

[ursi]

154. what's the big deal, didn't we do that for John Kerry in 04?

[dchill]

207. Just remove the sarcasm tag...

and you've got yourself a real post. At least Mitt Romney put his money where his mouth was - not yours - or anyone else's.

[jlake]

2. Nice spin.

[jgraz]

5. Feel free to spin it another way

What? There is no other way? I kinda thought so.

[jlake]

6. Did you post this kind of shit when Kerry loaned his campaign money?

[jgraz]

8. How does my four-year-old posting history make Hillary's con game any better?

Hmmm?

(BTW, you may get your answer if you look at my profile.)

[jlake]

11. I guess I am dense. Didn't get an answer from your profile.

Hillary is not playing a con game.
She is not profiting off of this. She loaned her own money - an advance if you will.
I am not sure why you are crucifying her for it.

[jgraz]

16. First, she made it a loan instead of a contribution

Second, she chose to withhold the information from her supporters until AFTER they had all made their Super Tuesday donations. She had to know for several days at least that a such a loan would be necessary, and yet she continued to take in contributions that people thought would be used directly for campaign activities -- not to pay her interest on her "investment".

(BTW, I joined DU on Nov 15th, 2004. It would have been pretty hard to post about Kerry's loan before that. ;) )

[onenote]

34. what can you tell us about the "interest" on this loan? link?

There are things like interest free loans. Are you certain that she is collecting interest from her campaign for this loan? Please provide a link

[jgraz]

42. Again, have you ever heard of interest-free campaign debt? I haven't

That would be a very unusual situation.

[onenote]

103. then apparently you don't follow politics very closely

Mitt Romney has given his campaign a couple of big interest free loans.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/campaign.php

[jgraz]

Note the qualifier.

This is apparently unusual enough that they mention "interest-free" twice in one paragraph. You still haven't shown that this applies to Hillary's situation.

Like I said, do that and I'll post a retraction. Until then, a safe assumption is that Hill's money is earning interest.

[onenote]

124. You ask for an example, I give one and its not good enough

The burden has shifted. Show me where Clinton is collecting interest on her loan.

Have you actually ever worked on a campaign at a level higher than your keyboard? Candidates front their campaigns with no-interest personal loans all the time, especially at the state and local level. They give up the earning power of the money they lend (that earning power works for the campaign to the extent the money sits in the campaigns account) and they run the risk that if the campaign flounders, they may never get paid back.

[jgraz]

131. Yes, it's not good enough

An example from a multi-hundred-millionaire who's self-financing his campaign is not the same as a one-time campaign loan.

Many people are asking what interest she's paying herself, but there are not a lot of answers out there. Another thing she has chosen not to disclose.

[onenote]

140. here's another example; no interest loan from family business

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apking05-09-06.htm

Have you got a single example of a candidate entering into an interest bearing loan arrangmenent with himself or herself or a family member?

Again, you're assuming that such loans always bear interest and yet you haven't cited a single example.

There are two types of loans that candidates typicallyget to finance their campaigns:
Self-financed loans -- loans from the candidate's own personal fortune, almost always given as a no-interest loan. Sometimes those loans are repaid, sometimes not. For example, Jon Corzine gave his campaign $60 million in loans that he later "forgave", essentially turning the loan into a contribution.

Loans from traditional lending institutions (banks) secured by the candidate's personal assets. This is what Kerry did--he basically took out a mortgage on property in which he had ownership. Such loans do bear interest, otherwise they would be illegal contributions from the bank. The reason that candidates go this route is that they don't want to liquidate assets. Maria Cantwell liquidated a lot of her stock to finance her campaign and also used some of it to secure loans that, later, she had trouble repaying because the value of her stock had dropped sharply and her contributions from other sources were sufficient to pay off her loan and all of her other debts.

Again, if you dont' know what you're talking about -- and you clearly don't -- just stop.

[jgraz]

114. Note the double post.

grumble

[TwilightGardener]

3. Clinton supporters must really love Mark Penn. They should write their

checks directly to him, and save Hillary's staff the trouble.

[tyne]

4. I wonder how

much interest she set on the loan. There's probably a standard campaign rate. Anyone know what it is?

[jgraz]

7. Yikes, I didn't even think about the fact that she'll earn interest on the debt

That must make each donation taste even sweeter. :rofl:

[nonconformist]

10. Right. And it all evens out then, doesn't it?

You're really stretching here.

If I pay a $200 bill, but then someone gives me $200 FOR that bill, is it unethical of me to put that money in the bank? It COVERED the bill, in the end.

[jgraz]

12. If you don't disclose where their money is going, it's damn unethical

Once again: she made the loan before Super Tuesday, disclosed it afterwards. Doesn't it bother you at all that for two or three days her contributors didn't know that their money was going to be used to pay back a personal loan?

[nonconformist]

14. No, because it ALL EVENS OUT.

Any sensible person can see that. I'd say the same if it were Obama.

You're reaching.

[jgraz]

29. No it doesn't. She's NOW asking you to help repay her "investment". With interest.

That's a bit different than asking for a direct campaign contribution, don't you think?

[bluedawg12]

23. It's a loan- loans get repaid with interest

what is the difference if she loaned it or went to a bank?

Yes, she will get interest on $5 million dollar loan- hopefully- as she is losing interest income by loaning it out.

There are campaign laws that probably cover this in great detail.

She didn't disclose it because it's strategic.

No one is giving her anything- it's may or may not be a loan repayment depending on how and when she has agreed to collect the loan.

[jgraz]

61. It's very simple.

Instead of supporting her campaign, your contributions are being used -- at least in part -- to replenish the Clintons' personal fortune.

You can say it makes no difference, or you can say not disclosing it was "strategic". You can't say both.

[tyne]

13. Has

Romney "loaned" or donated his money. Anyone know?

[northzax]

33. he loaned it

the only way he could give it.

And this op knows nothing of campaign finance. This loan will not be repaid until after her campaign is over. And then everything will most likely be paid by her senatorial campaign committee (even if she loses, she remains a senator from new York with four years left on her term, think she can raise that? I do. You really think this is being paid immediatly? Please. It took senator Kerry a year to pay his debts, including to himself. but by all means, let us use more divisive language. Politics of unity my ass.

[jgraz]

39. No, he didn't. At least get your facts straight.

Following an initial loan of $2 million, Romney has been self-financing through personal contributions. Not loans, contributions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3313665

The rest of your post is silly accounting tricks. If she can use your next $100 to retire her debt, then you are making a contribution directly to her own personal fortune.

[onenote]

166. actually you are wrong --- unless you think opensecrets.org is wrong

Notwithstanding the sloppy reporting in the story you post, ALL of mittens "contributions" to the campaign have been in the form of loans. WHich is why opensecrets, which actually looks at the financial reporting (unlike you, or apparently, ABC), shows that the $35 million in self financing is actually a campaign debt.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008

[jgraz]

167. Thanks for the info. It is truly disgusting that he's asking contributors to pay him back

Of course, the fact that Willard is far worse than Hillary doesn't really help now, does it?

[onenote]

168. and is it always disgusting when a candidate gets a loan and asks contributors to pay it back?

And is a loan that the candidate gives him/herself (w/o interest typically) worse or better than a loan obtained from a bank (w/interest)?

[jgraz]

173. A little bit, yeah. But that's not the only issue.

Also mentioned in the OP is the fact that she hid the information until the election was over, and that she's thrown her contributors' money at "odious toads" like Mark Penn.

[Tarc]

15. Seems a bit fishy

Candidates can put their own money into their campaigns, but I'm pretty sure that they cannot take money back out to pay down debt.

[Stand and Fight]

17. Good.

The more the bastards attack her the more I will give, and the more I have to give the less likely I am to support or even vote for Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, buddy.

[onenote]

18. did you fall and hit your head?

When you donate money to a political candidate, you're donating to a political candidate. If it goes to buy time for advertising or to pay back a loan taken out to buy advertising --- its the same damn thing.

If she hadn't loaned herself the money but had gotten a loan from a bank by mortgaging her home, would it be any different.

I swear, the level of thought around here sinks to new lows every time I look.

[jgraz]

24. I'd have to hit my head before I'd donate to that kind of a sham

1) Why a loan instead of a contribution? If she's going to self finance, why should her contributors pay her interest on her money?

2) Why did she hide it for several days? Doesn't she think her supporters are owed a full disclosure before they give money?

[onenote]

35. how do you know its not an interest-free loan?

I don't know that it is or isn't. I just find it odd that you seem to know that it isn't. Link?

[jgraz]

41. When's the last time you heard of an interest-free loan? The burden of proof is on you.

You show me where campaign debt is interest free and I'll post an immediate retraction.

[onenote]

102. the last time I heard of an interest-free loan to a campaign by a candidate: last October

Mitt Romney has done it a couple of times:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/campaign.php

[jgraz]

134. You didn't hear about that in October. You spend all last night looking it up

And you couldn't find one thing on Hillary's situation -- which is quite different from that of the Mittens.

[onenote]

171. actually, I've known all along

Because, unlike you (a) I know how things work in campaigns and (b) because I check on sources like opensecrets.org to see how the campaigns are doing in terms of funding. The fact that the amount that is listed for mittens as "debt" is almost identical to the amount listed as "self-financing" isn't a coincidence. His "contributions", as are typically the case of "contributions" by a self financing candidate, are in the form of loans to the campaign. Will he get it back? Depends on the generosity of his supporters. Like Jon Corzine, who "lent" 60 million to his campaign, he may just end up forgiving the debt and eating it so that he can pay off other expenses.

[Yael]

170. Do you grasp the concept of a loan vs a contribution?

If Hillary was making a $5mm contribution to her campaign as an "investment", that means she is putting money into it.

She didn't.

She loaned her campaign $5mm out of personal funds and is now asking the middle class to replenish her personal bank account for that loan.

HUGE, HUGE difference.

[MagsDem]

20. Oh please, they were dirt poor....

Until she wrote a book, and Bill was able to make money on speeches. And the only reason they made money off that was because the rethugs made them into controversial spectacles. Good for them that it eventually made them rich. Just desserts.

Corporate lawyer my ass. What a total ton of bullshit.

[jgraz]

31. They were also once very young -- are you also going to flame me for criticizing a toddler?

:crazy:

[MagsDem]

47. damn, you Obama people really know how to LIE

They didn't have any money at all until 2000 after Bill left office. They had to borrow heavily just to buy a home to live in after they left the white house. They certainly weren't young then by any stretch. You are just plain full of SHIT.

[jgraz]

49. You're right, I'm lying. Hillary was never a toddler.

She was hatched fully-formed from a leather briefcase, already wearing a pantsuit.

And BTW, Madame Curie, check the avatar. If you think hard you may be able to figure out who I've been supporting.

[MagsDem]

56. You're supporting a candidate not in the race?

Sure couldn't tell it from your posts.

And yes, I am right, you are lying. Clinton was not a corporate lawyer and certainly didn't get rich off of being a corporate lawyer.

[jgraz]

57. Yes, I'm sure Walmart paid her minimum wage

:eyes:

[LandOLincoln]

109. Pretty much.

$15,000/yr. is the figure I've seen. That's less than I was making as a temporary, part-time legal secretary back then.

But nice try...

[jgraz]

117. You've *heard*??

I've never *heard* of board members of a major corporation making less than six figures. You also have to take into account the stock incentives they get, which could run into the millions.

[LandOLincoln]

219. Here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

Kindly notice that I said "seen," not heard.

Notice too that indeed it was $15,000/yr.

[jgraz]

230. They paid her $15,000 for FOUR MEETINGS A YEAR

And you compare that to MINIMUM WAGE? :wtf:

Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope calculations: Assuming the meetings lasted at most four hours (the board meetings I've seen are usually shorter than that), Hillary was paid $937.50/hour. Of course, that doesn't count her stock grants, which the same article estimates at $100,000 over 6 years. That adds another $1042 per hour for a grand total of $1,979/hour -- or approximately $4,116,667/year for a full-time employee.

Nice work if you can get it.

[TornadoTN]

118. DIRT POOR?!?!!? Post of the day!

That's priceless. I guess if they were dirt poor then I'm a bum living under a bridge then.

[jgraz]

122. Well, I hear Arkansas pays its governor in waffles

:rofl:

[mitchum]

174. And I'm a bum wearing a wooden barrel for clothing

[Stephanie]

21. $4.3 million.

Mark Penn is a walking obscenity.

[MagsDem]

25. Guess who spent more on payroll - in fact the most evah???

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama spent $20.3 million on staff salaries last year, the biggest payroll for any presidential candidate, as he built an organization in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary states, according to a new analysis of campaign finance filings.

[jgraz]

27. How much of that went to a PR flack for Blackwater?

[Stephanie]

36. $20.3 million wouldn't pay more than four staffers on the Clinton campaign.

At $4.3 each, $20 million wouldn't go far. Obama however is able to buy an army of field workers to GOTV.

[MagsDem]

48. Having trouble with the facts?

He has broken all previous campaign records for every candidate on his payroll spending. Try to deal with the facts.

[joshcryer]

37. Holy shit he bought those caucuses!

[MagsDem]

50. Yes he did

Unfortunately you cannot buy a GE.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Good, he put a few bucks in my pocket back when too

[jgraz]

28. Why don't you make your check out directly to Bill?

Cut out the middle-man -- or woman, in this case.

[BrightKnight]

295. The Clinton administration put more than I few bucks in my pocket.

I have not forgotten. I made another contribution today and I will do more when I can.

The Obama campaign may promises everything to everyone but I know that the Clinton's will spend political capital on things that I care about.

[BlackVelvet04]

30. What's it to you what we do with our money?

BUZZ OFF.

[jgraz]

32. Just worried you hadn't thought it through, that's all

Given your history in picking a candidate, you must admit it's a reasonable assumption.

[BlackVelvet04]

38. Oh, that's so sweet of your to be worried about me

you pathetic little twit.

[jgraz]

40. Actually, we've all been a little worried about you

Consider this an intervention.

[Egnever]

45. snarf!

:toast:

[pnwmom]

301. You're more than a little presumptuous. n/t

[jgraz]

311. Do you have anything of substance to add?

If not, quit following me around like an annoying little yip dog.

[pnwmom]

326. Go ahead and ignore me. n/t

[Maxdee55]

43. Different Rules

How do you even know she is taking the money back, if she needs it for the campaign she will probably use it for the campaign. There seem to be different rules for Bill and Hillary Clinton, what some see as abhorrent behavior in them is status quo for others.

[incapsulated]

44. Rubbish. But thanks for trying to stop people donating to her campaign

Just shows to what total lows you people will go.

[jgraz]

46. The power of your "Rubbish" retort has completely destroyed my argument. Whatever will I do?

Oh right. :rofl:

[Exultant Democracy]

53. Now I am all confused, are we calling facts rubbish now? I thought that was what republicans did

I guess I am just out of the loop.

[jgraz]

55. Apparently Hillary supporters are also using this tactic

Won't be the first time they've borrowed from the Repugs. Certainly won't be the last.

[incapsulated]

74. Oh, now I'm a republican?

The money I donated is going to her campaign. Period.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Or do you think you can make up shit and call it fact?

If she needed to loan money to pay campaign costs, and the money I donated will make that up, so what, it is still money used for the campaign. Otherwise she will still need money once the loan has been used.

If you think she isn't going to need more than a few million the next few months, you don't know much about running a national campaign.

I will also add, that using your logic, if a candidate doesn't use all of their personal wealth for their campaign, they are holding out on you and shouldn't ask you for any money, since they have it in their bank.

[jgraz]

76. No, you're just acting like one

She made a loan to her campaign. Fact.

She will repay that loan with campaign funds. Fact.

She gets campaign funds from donations, including yours. Fact.


Therefore:

Your money is now being used, at least in part, to retire her debt to herself. With interest. QED.


Which part of that is so hard for you to understand?

[incapsulated]

79. Why do you think a candidate...

Should use *all their personal wealth* for their campaign?

Should they all mortgage their homes before asking for donations?

It's her money and she is going to need a lot more than that before this is over.

And calling an argument rubbish isn't acting like a republican.

But YOU are acting like an asshole.

[jgraz]

82. I see we've moved on to Repug tactic #2: putting up a straw man

Along with some good ol' ad hominem profanity. You're almost ready for a guest spot on Hannity's radio show.

[incapsulated]

85. I think Obama should sell his Rezko lot

Before asking for any money.

I THINK THE MULTIMILLIONAIRE PICTURED IN YOUR AVATAR SHOULD HAVE SPENT ALL THOSE MILLIONS BEFORE ASKING FOR A FUCKING DIME.

You are an unbelievable hypocrite and I'm done with you.

Oh, btw, distorting facts even though they really apply more to you is pure repuke bullshit.

[jgraz]

87. You really don't have a clue, do you?

Edwards couldn't spend his own money because he made a principled decision to take public funding. Obama's dealings with Rezko are similarly separate, private money.

What Hillary did was to mix her personal wealth in with her campaign money, and now you want us to pretend they're somehow still separate.

Rubbish, indeed.

[emilyg]

51. Didn't stop me.

Donated twice today.

[jgraz]

52. Chelsea thanks you for helping to restore her inheritance

[Zynx]

60. Evidently you've never heard of fungibility.

[jgraz]

63. Au contraire, fungibility is what makes my argument

The fact that money is money means that all the accounting tricks mentioned above are simple dodges. Once she made the loan from her personal fortune, that means that a certain proportion of ANY contribution will be paid back to her.

She could have made a personal contribution instead of a loan, or she could have managed her finances better. But making an undisclosed loan shows her contempt for her contributors. Most people don't have $5 million to loan themselves, and asking small contributors to pay interest on her own mismanagement is pathetic, to say the least.

[Zynx]

65. By that logic, any money given before the loan also went to pay it back.

Due to fungibility there is no such thing as "these $10 goes to pay back that loan, but those $10 I donated back in October don't" because they all count toward the overall balance of her campaign account.

[jgraz]

66. You can certainly think of it that way

However, now that she's made the loan, it's clear that a part of every campaign contribution will go to toward restoring her bank balance. What's also clear is that she acted in bad faith when she failed to disclose the loan until after the Super Tuesday race.

[Zynx]

183. I will use my background in economics and finance to look at this instead of

making a political point.

[jgraz]

186. Good for you. Lucky this isn't a political campaign or anything

:eyes:

[NMMNG]

64. That's nice

I hope she enjoys it. :hi:

[xmas74]

215. I hope she enjoys mine too.

It won't pay for much-maybe a few Egg McMuffins and some coffee on the trail.

I don't care-it's fine with me. I just like her as my candidate.

[jgraz]

69. Damn HuffPost -- here's the new link to the Mark Penn article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/mark-penns-firm-paid-4_n_85192.html

Seriously, Arianna -- was the 'htm' extension THAT bad? Did you really need to add that 'l' and break my link? :grr:

[Orangepeel]

73. Maybe she is going to put on a production of "Springtime for Hitler"

Maybe she's purposely running a lousy campaign in order to bilk her contributors out of money.

Oh, wait. She's spending her own money.

I guess I need to think this through some more.









:eyes:

Why do people post ridiculous charges? Have they no knowledge of how political campaigns work?

[jgraz]

78. No, she's NOT "spending her own money"

If she were spending her own money, she would have made a contribution, not a loan.

Instead, she's now spending your money to pay herself back. With interest.

Happy Contributing. :hi:

[Orangepeel]

81. My money first went to Edwards and is now going to Obama along with my vote next Tuesday

I just don't like silly criticisms of any candidate

:hi:

[jgraz]

84. I don't think it's silly at all

A millionaire who overspent on her campaign is now asking middle-class donors to help restore her fortune. It rankles quite a bit.

And yes, I'd be just as pissed if Edwards had pulled this shit.

[onenote]

104. again: do you have proof that the campaign is paying her interest on the loan?

If its her money, there's a good chance that its interest free. That's what Romney has been doing:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/campaign.php

[jgraz]

123. And again, you've searched all night and have found not one post supporting your claim

Let me know if you ever do, I'll happily retract my claim.

[joshcryer]

83. How I see it is she spent political capital.

And given how the polls were trending in the states she needed the most, it paid off.

The loan will be paid off in due time.

[jgraz]

86. I see it as spending money she didn't have and then asking middle-class supporters to bail her out.

Why doesn't she ask Mark Penn for a couple million? He can certainly spare that.

[joshcryer]

88. I'm sure he's tapped out.

She should've never paid him that kind of cash though, I absolutely agree.

But you were changing the subject. It paid off, had she lost CA she would've been done. At least now she has a fighting chance and at least Super Tuesday had her polling up. She may continue trending higher. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

[jgraz]

89. There are three separate issues in my OP

1) She overspent, reached into her own pockets, and is now asking middle-class contributors to help restore her personal wealth. Not illegal, not unethical, but still a bit ... unsavory.

2) She paid Mark Penn 4.3 MILLION DOLLARS to fuck up her campaign. Not illegal, not unethical, but it certainly calls her judgment into question.

3) She intentionally hid her loan until after the Super Tuesday vote, and then disclosed it only in response to a direct question. THAT is a serious ethical problem, IMHO, and it betrays a contempt for her supporters that should trouble anyone who has contributed to her campaign.

[joshcryer]

90. I don't see how 3 is unethical given that had she not kept it secret, she would've lost.

And that would've really hurt all her supporters who did donate in the past. At least now she has somewhat of a fighting chance.

[jgraz]

91. Exactly. More than a few voters would have liked to have known this information

By withholding it, she denied them the right to make an informed decision. She put her own ambition above the public interest.

[joshcryer]

95. How about all the other supporters who don't care about that?

How about all the supporters who donated to her campaign? You honestly believe any candidate would ruin their chances over something like that?

Dean never said he was broke going into a big campaign, even though he was as soon as the primaries began!

[jgraz]

99. Do you really want a candidate to lie to you in order to win an election?

She chose to withhold the information. SHE decided what the voters should know about her before casting their ballots.

And that's exactly the type of behavior that I've had enough of from the Clintons. If Hillary has to hide information to stay in the race, then she's already lost.

[onenote]

120. Are you really this naieve or are you just disingenuous

First you seem to be claiming that donations used to repay a loan are donations that line HRC's pocket. When you were called out on that absurd claim, you claimed that donations were going to enrich HRC because she would be collecting interest on her loan, although you've no evidence whatsoever that this isn't an interest-free loan, and when that was pointed out, you claimed not to have ever heard of such a thing. Of course, that was easily answered by pointing to Romney's campaign, which has received over 17 million in interest free loans. Its called "fronting" a campaign and its common, thereby suggesting that your awareness of how campaigns are run extends no further than your keyboard.

Now you've picked up a couple of new points: that it was misleading not to tell voters who gave HRC money that she needed the money -- uhh, why do you think that they were giving her money, because she didn't need it? Campaigns always "need" money which is why they always ask for it. Your premise is as silly as that of the poster in another thread that suggested that Obama shouldn't be asking for money because he doesn't "need" it. It doesn't work that way, never has, never will and only someone incredibly naieve or disingenuous would suggest otherwise.

Finally, you've got this idea that not disclosing the loan until after Super Tuesday was unethical because disclosing it might have caused some voters to rethink their support. Maybe it would've caused them to do so. THe reason it might have done so, of course, is that the loan would've dominated the news on Monday. But if campaigns -- all campaigns -- are about anything, they are about "managing the message" -- and it was perfectly understandable, and not the slightest bit unethical -- for Clinton to want to keep the campaign's message from getting buried in a bunch of stories about fundraising. Again, thinking otherwise is just naieve or disingenuous.

BTW, I'm voting for Obama on Tuesday.

[jgraz]

135. Can't I be both?

Re-read my OP. I made all those claims there (except for the interest, which someone else pointed out) and haven't changed my arguments one bit. You've chosen to focus on the interest question which, though interesting to me, is not really at the heart of what bothers me about this whole fiasco.

[onenote]

142. so you still think that people who gave to HRC were duped

because they thought she needed money and...she did?

[jgraz]

143. They were duped because she withheld the information

And they should now be honest with themselves about where their contributions are going: Private jets, Mark Penn and Hillary's own checking account.

[onenote]

149. "Hillary's own checking account" -- LOL

Still sticking with that unsopported piece of crap I see.

Go out and work on a campaign and get an education. You're just embarassing yourself.

[jgraz]

153. So it's suddenly not a loan?

You DO understand the meaning of a loan don't you?

[onenote]

160. I clearly understand how this works much more than you do.

Let me walk you through it. Money is constantly flowing into and out of a campaign. Debts are being incurred -- television time is not paid for the day the ads are run -- its billed, as are most expenses, like rent, posters, advertising production. So on any given day, there is money coming in and money going out and new expenses being incurred. Clinton "lends" (more accurately, "advances") the campaign $5 million. That money is co-mingled with the other money already in the campaign coffers and with money going out. When payments are made, they are made in money -- not special dollar bills with "loan" written on them. Just plain old checks from an account funded from various sources. At some point, may be sooner, maybe later, one of the expenses that gets paid from the campaign's account is used to pay back the loan/advance.

Money if fungible. I know that this was pointed out to you before, but apparently its too complex a concept for you to grasp.

[jgraz]

161. You make my case for me

I know you read my response to the fungibility post, so who's being disingenuous now?

[pnwmom]

300. Of course. You are both naive and disingenuous.

I'm surprised you'd admit it, though.

[joshcryer]

227. Dean did it in 2004 and I didn't hate him for it. It's not lying though.

[johnnydrama]

94. I see it this way

If somebody donates to her today, it's to help her out in the future. But it's like your donation today means nothing, she's already spent it. If you want to donate money to her, it's for staff and advertisement in future states.

But since that money is going to go back to repay her loan, it's not helping the campaign out.

I know it's all the same money, but one should have this information before donating.

[joshcryer]

96. That's not really true, the political capital she maintained was a life line to her campaign.

It would be wrong to just let your supporters down and say "I'm giving up" after all that money they spent.

People here must understand that the "loan" could've defaulted, and she would've been out that $5 million if she lost, you know. She did it for her supporters.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Penn, odious toad that he is, got $4.3 million from the Clinton campaign?

I'd be looking for a refund.

[joshcryer]

97. Same here.

WTF.

[jgraz]

157. "odious toad"

I'm soo going to steal that. :rofl:

[Tennessee Gal]

105. This thread is a disgrace.

The OP is attacking Clinton for legally using campaign finance tactics that have been practiced for years.

This practice did not deter me from donating to John Kerry in 2004. It does not deter me from donating to Hillary this year. In fact, I donated to her yesterday after this news came out.

I originally supported John Edwards and generously donated to him. Had he remained in the race and been legally qualified to loan his campaign personal funds it would not have changed my opinion or support. The OP appears to have been an Edwards supporter and perhaps should take that into consideration.

[adabfree]

106. Truth is...

Hill should have given up the private lear jet alot sooner and flown in the press plane. It was just stated on MSNBC that her campaign really wasted a great deal of money beginning way back in Iowa.

[jgraz]

139. She had a PRIVATE JET?

Wow, she's loaning herself money to cover her private jet. No, the Republicans won't use that one against her. :crazy:

[burythehatchet]

319. Disclosure.

[TankLV]

332. absolutely...

This is a disgusting thread...

[bigtree]

107. despicable post

[jgraz]

133. Now there's the incisive political analysis we've come to expect from bigtree

Oh bigtree, how I've missed you.

[Baby Snooks]

265. Despicable post?

More like a despicable candidate.

[EffieBlack]

108. You could also argue, I guess, that in giving to Edwards, you were lining his pockets

since every dime contributed to his campaign was one less dime he had lend from his own personal fortune.

Of course, my argument is as big a crock as yours is.

If people want to donate to Hillary - or any other candidate, for that matter - that is their business and you only sound petty and condescending lecturing them about why their choice is wrong for them.

[jgraz]

121. Once he took public financing, he was prohibited from contributing to his own campaign

Something I heartily supported.

[Tennessee Gal]

137. Would you have still supported him had he not done that, but

loaned personal funds to his campaign instead?

That is the relevant question.

[jgraz]

141. No. I might have voted for him, but I would not have contributed

I need the money a lot more than he does. If he had gone the self-financing route, I might have reconsidered my support for him.

[Tennessee Gal]

148. Did you support John Kerry?

[jgraz]

155. Not financially

My money went to MoveOn and other PACs in 2004.

[onenote]

211. but you didn't hold it against him that he self-financed (with loans!) his senate run in 1998

You can look it up on opensecrets.org -- compare the amount that he "self-financed" with the amount of campaign debt -- its not just a coincidence that its the same amount.

This article from spring 1998 mentions that at that point, Edwards had loaned his campaign 3.2 million.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/12/cq/lawyer.candidates.html

Glad to see you have a forgiving heart.

[jgraz]

222. I gave him zero dollars in 1998

[onenote]

241. and he still got elected. Go figure.

[BeachBuckeye]

110. I guess Econ 101 wasn't one of your courses

I'm assuming you don't work for anyone where you have to keep the books. Probably the most simple minded argument I've seen on this board in years.

[jgraz]

127. Did they somehow change the meaning of "loan" since I got out of the derivatives trade?

One of the ways you hedge a package of risky debt instruments is to consider the financial resources of the debtors. In this case, the campaign is the debtor, the financial resource is you, and the person holding the paper is Hillary. Unless she immediately writes off the loan, a part of every contribution you make will end up in her pocket.

Did I miss something here?

[itcfish]

111. OMG Can You

smear Hillary a little bit more? This is so petty.

[jgraz]

125. I actually can, but at this point the whining is hurting my ears

[mondo joe]

112. Actually, I'm helping her repay the loan. I'm fine with that. NT

[DUyellow]

115. I wouldn't feel too good in paying back a millionaires loan that i knew nothing about.

[mondo joe]

116. You seem to have a problem understanding that you are just you, and not other

people.

:-)

[jgraz]

146. Then who are all these other folks in my bedroom?

:P

[jgraz]

129. That's cool. But let's not pretend it's something it's not

If you want to help her get her money back, that's your prerogative. My biggest objection to the whole thing is that she chose to hide this fact from her contributors until after the Super Tuesday race.

And that she's already paid most of it to that toxic reptile Penn.

[mondo joe]

150. I don't see the issue. I'm contributing to her campaign - however it gets used

after it leaves my hands, provided it is not unlawful, is a non issue for me.

When I contribute to a candidate, or to any non profit, I understand they will make financial decisions that my $ will support.

If in this case it goes to repay a loan that covered campaign expenses, I'm still paying for those campaign expenses.

[sniffa]

119. Indeed they are

Not to knock them, as they're free to help get her out of debt. I just hope they know exactly where that money is going, and why it happened. If they still choose to do so, that's their right.

But thanks for this thread. It's bluntfully (hey, I made up a word!) true. K&R

[hertopos]

126. Look, I am financial adviser and what you are saying is seriously out of wacko

This is not a so called 'good investment'.
If she gives away money, it will have serious tax implications.
Loan is the only reasonable form to add some cash to her campaign finance needs.

I don't know if Mark Penn may worth that much or not... That is a good question now. Clearly Mark Penn underestimated 'Viral marketing' nature of Obama campaign.

I am really concerned about Obama candidacy now even more since Obama supporter understand how finance and economy works.

You hate Greenspan fine. You hate Bill fine. Well, the reality is they maintained the best economy in 20 century without relying on war profit.

I am fiscally moderate, socially liberal democrat. I also help environmental cause fund-raising with my financial planning knowledge.

I watch CMBC while eating breakfast for most of my morning. Over last 8 years. Well, let me tell you something. Economy is going to go through very bad period. I do think Hillary is the best equipped person to go through these.

Hertopos

[jgraz]

128. Fine. So Hillary's supporters are helping her to maintain a good "Tax profile" this year

How nice of them.

Too bad she didn't tell them about it until after Super Tuesday.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

130. oh shut up

[jgraz]

132. Wow, that's some stunning political dialog right there

Truth a bit hard this morning?

[GoldieAZ49]

138. Thats right, she LOANED the money, that gets paid back first

she is not self financing like Mittens is

[onenote]

147. sorry but Mittens is making loans too. Big ones. Much bigger than HRC

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/campaign.php

By the end of the year, he apparently had donated his campaign $35 million.

Check out the report on opensecrets.org. Mittens has raised over $50 million from third parties and has $35 million in outstanding debt -- that debt is loans he has made to the campaign from his personal finances. He may or may not ever get paid back.

And no, it doesn't necessarily get paid back first. Maria Cantwell had millions in bank loans secured by her personal assets that she had to renegotiate because she couldn't pay those loans and also pay other campaign debts, including staff salaries.

And Jon Corzine lent his campaign $60 million and eventually "forgave" the debts, essentially turning it into a contribution.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you should refrain from displaying your ignorance.

[jgraz]

152. I'm not voting for Mittens either

Are you?


Thanks for the research, but don't pretend that you knew any of this before last night. You're the one who challenged on Hillary's interest payments, and you still got bupkis in that area.

[onenote]

156. I got nothing? I've got so much more than you its not even funny

You have your assertion that HRC is collecting interest, for which you not only have no specific support, but you haven't cited to a single example of a candidate lending themselves money and collecting interest on it. Not one.

I, on the other hand, have cited several examples of how candidates lend themselves money pursuant to no interest terms.

[jgraz]

158. Yeah, why don't you just whip it out right here so we all can see

:rofl:

I never made the assertion, I asked the question. It still seems like a reasonable assumption, especially given the fact that you haven't been able to find one piece of specific information on how she structured her loan.

Since this is an ancillary conversation to my main point, I'm not particularly interested in proving a negative for your edification.

[onenote]

169. "I never made the assertion" -- Well call the mods, cause someone is posting under your name!

Check out post numbers 7, 16, 24, 29, 42, 71 and 73. You should ask the mods to delete them since you obviously didn't write them.

Always glad to help out.

[jgraz]

178. While you're doing research, look up "assumption" vs "assertion"

I'm assuming she's paying herself interest, but I've allowed in many posts that I could be wrong. If/when I hear confirmation that the loan is interest-free, I will make a correction.

Until then, I think it's a safe assumption that she's earning interest on her money.

[onenote]

197. Oops. My mistake. I meant post 78, not 73:

"If she were spending her own money, she would have made a contribution, not a loan.

Instead, she's now spending your money to pay herself back. With interest."


Definition of assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

Definition of assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

The above statement certainly fits the definition of an assertion. I suppose it also fits the definition of an assumption -- not necessarily mutually exclusive (an assertion can be based on an assumption).

Still, its far beyond your claim that all you did is raise the question. You may have posed it as a question in some posts, but in most you've asserted/assumed it, "with no support or attempt at proof".

[jgraz]

200. please continue to split hairs, it's so interesting for the other readers

:eyes:

[onenote]

201. please continue to mislead and dance around -- its actually very entertaining

"please continue to split hairs" -- coming from the poster who defended themselves by trying to draw a distinction between an assertion and an assumption.

Priceless!!!

[jgraz]

202. Whatever. I do hope some reporter asks her about the interest rate and clears this up

[joshcryer]

228. That doesn't have to be paid back first, don't be assinine.

She could hold out until 2016 to pay it back.

[Tennessee Gal]

144. I still say .....

The OP is attacking Clinton for legally using campaign finance tactics that have been practiced for years.

This practice did not deter me from donating to John Kerry in 2004. It does not deter me from donating to Hillary this year. In fact, I donated to her yesterday after this news came out.

I originally supported John Edwards and generously donated to him. Had he remained in the race and been legally qualified to loan his campaign personal funds it would not have changed my opinion or support. The OP appears to have been an Edwards supporter and perhaps should take that into consideration.

[jgraz]

151. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right

I did not donate to Kerry in 2004 for just this reason, sending money to MoveOn and other progressive PACs instead.

I would not have donated to Edwards had he self-financed. But since he accepted public matching funds, he was legally prohibited from using his own money. And I was happy to see my contribution doubled.

At any rate, the loan is the least of my objections. The lack of disclosure and the way she chooses to spend her money is much more of an issue, IMHO.

[Tennessee Gal]

175. Do you have access to how Obama is spending his campaign funds?

Sorry, I think you are being silly.

I donated for a second time to Clinton today.

I would have donated to Edwards even if he had used his personal funds.

Either you support someone or you don't.

You have chosen to support Obama. Good on you, but attacking Hillary on this matter is just wrong.

[jgraz]

188. I know he's not paying Mark Penn

And if I find out he IS paying someone as horrific as Penn, I'll never send him a dime. Ever. Same goes for Edwards.


BTW, I'm still a little shaky on Obama. I'm just a helluva lot more shaky on Hillary.

[Tennessee Gal]

191. Fair enough.

Agree to disagree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

159. My heart bleeds for the downtrodden rich politicians.

When they become homeless dumpster dippers, my concern will rise above the :nopity: level.

[bpeale]

162. and your point is? there are laws regarding our donations

and not even the clintons can break that. quit being an asshole/.

[jgraz]

163. Did anyone say she was breaking a law?

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.

[bpeale]

164. it was IMPLIED that our donations were going into their PERSONAL bank account

[jgraz]

165. She made a PERSONAL loan -- how exactly do you think that will be paid off?

Your money is not only paying for her private jet and her skeevy PR flack, it's now also being used to restore the personal wealth of the Clintons. That's not illegal, but it is a hard fact.

[Yael]

181. bpeale, they are going into a personal account

She isn't self financing, she made a loan out of her checkbook.

The campaign contributions being made are repaying her for that, they are not advancing the campaign.

[onenote]

198. the money she lent the campaign is being used to advance the campaign

and therefore the money being used to pay back the loan is being used to advance the campaign.

Consider the following:

Candidate has opportunity to make big ad buy which candidate believes will advance campaign by energizing supporters and getting message out to those who are undecided or supporting opponent. Candidate believes that if he/she is successful, the energized/new supporters will support campaign financially going forward.

Candidate A buys the time knowing he/she doesn't have the money to pay for it, but hoping that enough money comes in to pay for it after it runs. It does and ad is paid for and campaign is advanced.

Candidate B goes to bank and obtains loan allowing it to pay for the ad in advance. Loan is secured by second mortgage on candidate's home and ad is purchased. Money flows into campaign coffers and is used to pay back loan.

Candidate C goes to bank and obtains loan allowing it to pay for the ad, but payment isn't due on ad until after it runs. Loan is secured by second mortgage on candidate's home. Loan proceeds are paid into campaign coffers and co-mingled with other money that the candidate has and later receives. Money from campaign coffers (co-mingled pre-loan donations, loan proceeds and post-loan donations) are used to pay for ad and also to pay back loan.

Candidate D takes personal funds and makes an interest free loan to campaign to cover the cost of the ad buy. The ad buy is made, supporters are energized, and money comes in allowing campaign to repay no-interest loan.

In each of these situations the result is the same: the loan advanced the campaign and the money contributed before and after the loan also advanced the campaign.

[Yael]

204. Not is, was.

This isn't advancing -- it is paying off debts incurred in January.

Advancing is when you add money to a campaign that hasn't already been spent.

[onenote]

209. all campaigns have debts and use money raised after the fact to pay them

CHeck open secrets to see how much debt Obama's campaign has. You may be surprised.

Whether the money used to pay off those debts is money raised before the debt was incurred or after makes no difference. The money, however raised, is being used to advance the campaign.

[Yael]

212. I don't consider putting $5mm back into Hillary's personal bank account

(and apparently now an additional $1.5mm still owed against Mark Penn's $5.8mm invoice) "advancing the campaign", but whatever works for you!

[onenote]

214. she took the money out of her account to spend on the campaign

If she hadn't loaned the campaign the money, the next $5 million would be spent on what the loan was used for instead of being (theoretically) available to pay back the loan. Exactly how does that benefit HRC? The result is the same.

THe fact is that its unlikely that the loan will be immediately "paid back" since doing so would only create a situation where HRC might have to advance money again. Campaigns often end up in debt and loans from candidates to campaigns often don't get repaid in full (just ask Jon Corzine). If HRC raises enough to cover her loan and has money left over, it doesn't enrich her -- its just money available for future campaigns. If she doesn't have enough to cover it, she takes a hit.

[Yael]

216. She spent money she didn't have

So rather than pony up, she lent herself the cash knowing her supporters would reimburse her.

Middle class people filling up the Clinton personal coffers because she wasn't responsible enough to manage her finances.

Apparently, you find this appropriate.

I won't argue with you about it -- suffice to say I think her ethics stink.

[onenote]

217. middle class people are supporting her campaign because they support her campaign

They aren't "filling her personal coffers" -- they are donating money that may or may not be used to repay a debt incurred by the campaign to pursue the goals that those supporters want pursued: the nomination of HRC. Whether the loan came from HRC's personal funds or from a bank makes no difference (other than since the loan from her personal funds could be and almost certainly was interest free its a smarter way to advance the campaign's goals than borrowing money that has to be repaid with interest).

At the end of the campaign she may have debt, she may not; she may get her loan repaid, she may not. Unless you have a crystal ball you don't know that.

Middle class people were donating because they wanted to support the campaign. Do you think they'd want to support the campaign less if the campaign needed it more?

Campaigns send out fundraising letters all the time. I get dozens of them. I'm trying to remember when I got one that said "Gee, we're so flush with cash we don't need another dime, but please contribute anyway". Never happens. Instead every appeal for cash is the same: we need your help.

[jgraz]

223. If that's true, why did she hide the loan until after Super Tuesday?

By your reasoning, it should not have made one bit of difference in the vote count or the donations she received. Yet she chose to withhold the information until yesterday. Why?

[onenote]

236. as i explained: because campaigns try to manage their message

and having the press focus on fundraising before supertuesday would take them off message. Every political campaign tries to manage the message.

You must be very new to this politics thing.

As I said, I'm voting for obama and would expect him to do everything he can to manage his message as well, and would be disappointed if he didn't.

[HughMoran]

172. Well, you've jumped the shark

:hi:

[Tennessee Gal]

177. Yep, jumped the shark....

:crazy:

[jgraz]

182. Aw, that's too bad. I'll miss you.

Who are you again?

[Tennessee Gal]

187. A nobody just like you.

[sniffa]

281. It's ignored

Popular DUer.

[butterfly77]

176. What's wrong...

are you afraid that she will start getting more donations..

[jgraz]

180. Are you afraid her contributors will find out where their money is going?

[butterfly77]

189. Why do you care ...

do you worry about where Obama's contributors money goes..No. I just gave and will give again..

[jgraz]

195. I worry about how my money is being spent.

If I didn't like how Edwards was spending my contributions, I wouldn't have given him money.

You're perfectly welcome to make a different decision about your contributions. What I don't like is when a candidate attempts to withhold information from her contributors in order to score in an election.

Or when she spends her contributors' money on a sack of human waste like Mark Penn.

[Yael]

185. Jgraz doesn't need me to defend him, but if you reread the OP

you will see that the concern is that people make informed decisions.

Several have stated here that they donated, the understand, and they are fine with it. Cheerio because that was the POINT. Donate all you like -- but be aware of this method of campaign financing.

[robbedvoter]

192. Thank you for your concern about my personal budget.

I am sure you held the same position about contributing to Kerry in 2004,
Coming from someone who made the disgusting comment about throwing $50 in the toilet,
I took a $50 bill and flushed it down the toilet

It was more satisfying and it did about as much good.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4447735&mesg_id=4447778
it's advice I shall give it the honor that it earned

[jgraz]

194. I did hold the same position about Kerry

Once he made a loan to himself, he was asking his contributors to pay back the Heinz Family fortune. He didn't see a dime from me in '04.



(Oh, and when you're done with this thread, go look up the concept of "humor". I think you'll find it interesting reading.)

[LandOLincoln]

220. Kerry had to mortgage his half of the Georgetown townhouse

he shares with Theresa Heinz Kerry in order to finance his floundering campaign.

It would have been against the law for Heinz Kerry to contribute to her husband's campaign. He could use his own money only.


I assume the same is true with Hillary. The $5 million she loaned her campaign came out of her book money.

As for your claim that she should have announced the loan before Super Tuesday--yeah, right. If she had done anything as boneheaded as that, I would seriously have to reconsider my support for her.

As it is, I will be donating to her campaign through Wes Clark's website, and encouraging her to dump Penn and especially the loathesome Lehane.

Thank you for your concern. :sarcasm:

[jgraz]

233. So you like the fact that your candidate was not telling you the truth

Interesting...

And thanks for the reminder about Lehane. The stench from Penn almost made me forget about him.

[oasis]

196. Meanwhile, Romney's minions will likely fill the Barack piggybank in hopes that

he will defeat McCain. Romney will set a course to run in 2012 in the wake of the Obama Administration's "Wishin' and Hopin'" four-year fiasco.

[jgraz]

203. So? If Obama pulls in Repug money that's a good thing, isn't it?

[oasis]

208. The 'pugs live in hopes that Obama will stumble and bungle through 4 years in the WH.

"The politics of hope".

[jgraz]

235. So you're saying Republicans are dumbasses?

Hey, we finally agree! :toast:

[jgraz]

206. Sorry, folks -- I WAS WRONG

Even if his candidate fails to secure the Democratic nomination, Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton, has profited quite handsomely.

Through the course of the primary, Penn's consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, has been paid more than $4.3 million by the Clinton campaign, according to a review of campaign finance filings.

That total, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, includes receipts for tasks ranging from polling and consulting to mail expenses and even photography. It does not include the $1.5 million the Clinton campaign is in debt to the firm.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/mark-penns-firm-paid-4_n_85192.html

So part of your contribution also goes directly into Mark Penn's pocket. I'm sure that makes you feel a lot better.

[onenote]

210. and the money you give to HRC and Obama goes directly into the MSM' s pockets

Since they sell their services (in the form of air time) to the campaign to use for advertising and -- shock and horror -- your contributions go to pay the bills to those tv, radio, newspaper, cable outlets.

Oh my, what a scandal!

[tandot]

218. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading this worthless thread. I want a refund

:banghead:

[hill08]

221. I am fine with that

JUST WIN BABY!!! GO Hillary

[YDogg]

224. welcome to DU

:hi:

[shaniqua6392]

225. I had better send in another donation then.

Thanks for letting us know she needs help.

[Baby Snooks]

226. Well, when you think about it, you're right

She has loaned the money. So she gets the money back. But of course she is getting the money back from the people who donate to her campaign.

She can't raise enough money so she borrows from herself which should say something about her ability to raise money. At this point, she can't. So good luck to those who get suckered into this.

Obama on the other hand is having no problem raising money. From the people. Hillary's money has come from the corporations. Everyone but the Hillary Cheerleaders can figure that one out.

Add the $20 million from Ron Burkle that no doubt Bill Clinton will loan the campaign, however, and she will still probably end up with the nomination because she can use the money to lobby the "local yokels" to convince the voters in their district to vote for her rather than Obama. At the end of the day, however, the people's money in her case will be simply to pay her and Bill back. For pulling another scam.

She represents the corporations that are now limited in what they can contribute to her. Obama represents the people. Who are not limited because there are more people than corporations. And he is raising a lot of money from the people. But what the hell, the people really don't matter, do they?

I again wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if Jesus Christ were her running mate.

[TheDeathadder]

229. Jesus!!

The petty attacks never stop.

[jgraz]

231. This ain't exactly making fun of her pantsuits

There is a serious question as to how well she's managing her campaign funds and how honest she's been with her supporters. You don't think Hillaroids would have raised this issue if it had been Obama loaning himself the money?

[TheDeathadder]

232. Hillary Clinton supporters know what Clinton is doing

and we're cool with it. We don't need people to explain to us our candidate, and worse, try to smear our candidate to us Over and Over and Over.

[jgraz]

234. Really? You knew before Super Tuesday that she had run out of money?

You must be more tightly connected to her campaign than the rest of us.

[TheDeathadder]

237. She's not out of money

she needed more money to keep up with Obama high total. He raise 32 million to her 13 million. We knew that before the day after super tuesday's "Clinton Out Of Money" story.

We Clinton people know more about Clinton than any of you non-Clinton people. Why can't we be respected that we know our candidate and we're cool with our candidate? Is there a problem with that?

[jgraz]

239. "She's not out of money. she needed more money"

Hate to break it to you, but that's sort of the definition of being out of money. :rofl:

[TheDeathadder]

242. No being out of money means you have no money.

She does.

I hate to break it to you. Clinton people are 100% with every decision she makes during this Primary. We tell this to people everytime someone tells us "Hey "HILLBOTS" did you know Clinton did this/does this/is doing this?" So thank you but we don't need to be saved from Clinton, we need Clinton to save this country.

Starting trouble with us will never make us change our minds about her, only want her as a candidate even more.

Thank you

[onenote]

240. And it appears that if they had they would 've given money last week

instead of this week.

Go figure. Supporters will give money when they find out its needed. How strange.

:sarcasm:

[TheDeathadder]

244. Right

How strange that even though Obama has plenty of money...he also over the last few days has had the same spike in fundrasing. Why if he has all the money he needs, and all his followers know he has plenty of money?

After any big contest you are going to see a spike in fundraising. Nothing strange about it. why turn to slander or insult?

[onenote]

246. Because he's asking for it.

No candidate in history has ever sent out a letter saying, we have all the money we need. Don't bother sending us any more. Nope. Money is the lifeblood of a campaign and campaigns will seek it with a variety of pitches all aimed at convincing people that more money is needed, whether its to match the efforts of the opposition, or simply to get the message out more and "grow" the campaign.

[TheDeathadder]

248. My point to the arguement replies to my post is

there's always a spike in fundraising after a big contest. Both Clinton and Obama are raising lots of money. But for Obama people are saying the fundraising is a sign of strength and for Clinton it's a sign of weakness and lies. That's crazy.

[Thrill]

238. They fooled their supporters. LMAO

[TheDeathadder]

245. No they didn't

[jgraz]

252. Yeah, they really did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4464637&mesg_id=4464637

Just not exactly in the way I thought. Once again, I get caught underestimating the sliminess of the Clintons.

[sniffa]

247. Hey jgraz - I hope you saw this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4464637

[jgraz]

254. that is truly disgusting.

I hope Obama nails her to the wall on this.

[sniffa]

257. And the first stealth Hilla... er, I mean Obama supporter shows up

to ask, "Tell me what's deceptive about it?"

:rofl:

[onenote]

263. and do you have answer?

Crickets....

[jgraz]

266. Wait a sec. Sniffa's looking for her "Deception for Dummies" book

[onenote]

272. I'm sure its the picture version. Words probably too hard for sniffa and you

[Yael]

293. Ouch!!!

Damn -- does it get any sneakier with that campaign?

[sniffa]

303. Rhetorical question?

;)

[Yael]

304. Pretty much. It is just mind boggling how they treat people.

Damn I miss John in this race. He would have railed her from one end of eternity to another on this shit.

[sniffa]

305. He still can

Even if he's on the sidelines; his campaign is just suspended, and if he finally drops out I hope he'd still nail her for this.

[Yael]

307. If someone on our side doesn't, you know the (R)s will come the fall

It will be 24/7 "DO YOU TRUST HER".

I can't blame them for that either -- because I don't.

[bjobotts]

249. repatying campaign loans is no different than paying directrly for tv ads goober.

Is this more of the Obama wants to bring peace and everyone together hate from some of his bent supporters. The evil (most popular president since Reagan)Clinton's crap. Right out of a republican playbook. Hillary sure has you repukes scared and running nuts. Are you saying that Obama is so well liked by republicans because he's more progressive liberal. What are you saying. It's all a Clinton scheme to rob us of our money? She fronted money to her campaign while waiting for donations to come in to cover it. See how biased and bent your frame is. (Run for your lives the evil Clinton's are coming) Grow up.

[TheDeathadder]

250. Amen

[jgraz]

251. Except she's been lying to you, Gomer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4464637&mesg_id=4464637

(Thanks, sniffa!)

[onenote]

253. where was the lie. I'm curious.

These are the statements made by Clinton and her campaign when the loan was disclosed:

"The loan illustrates Senator 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."

and
"
I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. That’s where I got the money. I did it because I believe very strongly in this campaign, and we had a great month fund-raising in January, broke all our records, but my opponent was able to raise more money and we intended to be competitive – and we were – and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment.”

So I'm still wondering, other than in the overheated minds of people blogging and posting on the Internet, where was there any deception?

[jgraz]

258. The meaning of "is"

I'm should really stop being surprised at the tolerance Clinton supporters have for being lied to.

[onenote]

261. So, you got nothing. I figured as much

[jgraz]

264. No, I'm just tired of schooling you on basic politics

[onenote]

269. Funniest post of the day. What you don't know about politics could crash the Internet.

You are possibly the most clueless poster around today. As I said, its been quite entertaining.

[jgraz]

271. Riiight. And you're an obama supporter

:rofl:

[onenote]

273. Damn straight skippy. I am. Because i find him inspiring.

Many of his supporters around here? Not so much. But I'm pretty sure he'd be embarassed by them too.

[onenote]

276. Here you go. Its thoughtful, so you might not understand it

The explanation I posted for why I had decided to support Obama:


I have steadfastly remained on the fence in the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I find myself moving off the fence and wanted to share my thinking (with the hope that I am not starting a flame war in doing so).

First and foremost, I should be clear that I approach the issue of who to support from a totally pragmatic perspective. I want a candidate that can win. Period. That may bother some people who think that it means I have no principles, but I can live with that criticism. What I can't live with is another four to eight years of repubs controlling the executive branch (and by extension, the judiciary).

With that in mind, I have always considered Clinton, Obama and Edwards (the only candidates I felt were ever serious contenders for the nomination) as nominees who could defeat the repub candidate and I would have no problem in voting for any of them. If anything, I was probably leaning a bit towards Edwards based on my belief that he might be more acceptable to the electorate at large than either Clinton or Obama.

However, Edwards never did catch on and now he's gone. As between Obama and Clinton, I see strenghs and weaknesses in both. Obama's "newness" is both an advantage, in that I think it attracts people who have not previously gotten involved in politics and who are ready for "change", and a disadvantage, because many will consider him too inexperienced or untested. (I personally am not concerned about Obama's experience or lack thereof; my only reason for mentioning it is that my perception is that some voters may be concerned).

As for Clinton, her lack of "newness" is also both a blessing and a curse. She is a known entity. Her husband's presidency, particularly in comparison to the past eight years, looks pretty good and that attracts a lot of Democrats who have been active in the party through both the good times and the lean times. On the other hand, she is a polarizing figure to many. Its unfair that this is the case, but its undeniably true. I think she, like Bill before her, can overcome that and win against any of the potential repubs, particularly because of her appeal to women, but overall I'm not sure if the number of "ABC" voters doesn't offset at least in some significant measure, the number of voters that she brings in that would not previously have paid attention to the campaign.

Ultimately, my leaning towards Obama is based on the sense that I have that his message of "change" (whether or not you believe it means anything in reality) is resonating with a lot of voters, particularly independents and those who have not gotten involved in the political process in the past. Does he have the potential to push away voters, particularly those who with deep set racial biases? Yes. But I think a lot of those voters, sadly, also would be alienated by a female candidate. So on balance, I see the Obama candidacy of having more potential upside for exciting a part of the electorate that hasn't been active.

I think that either a clinton candidacy or an obama candidacy could generate a lot of excitement. But at the moment, I'm personally feeling that this sense of excitement surrounds the Obama campaign more than the Clinton campaign. Maybe its just an infatuation with the new and unknown -- and like all infatuations, it will diminish. But at least for the moment, that feeling of excitement is drawing me in and pulling me off the fence in Obama's direction.


BTW -- I also spend time criticizing over the top Hillary supporters, such as the sophomoric poster that called up Teddy Kennedy to complain that his endorsement of Obama was taking away the "voice" of women voters and the equally stupid poster who complained that people were donating money to Obama instead of curing world hunger and rebuilding new orleans. I'm equal opportunity when it comes to pointing out stupid shit on DU.

[TheDeathadder]

255. no she hasn't

[jgraz]

260. Well you certainly showed me

that you have no clue what's really going on.

[TheDeathadder]

284. yes I do

[sniffa]

267. You're welcome

But, it depends on what your meaning of the word, "parse" is. :rofl:

[cachukis]

256. Fools

Fools at a fair

[Perry Logan]

259. Imagine if some of this creative energy could be directed against Republicans!

[jgraz]

262. Once we get this pro-war corporate shill out of the race, I'll have plenty left for the Repugs

[Perry Logan]

268. You are not fit to lick Hillary Clinton's boots.

[jgraz]

270. Apparently you are

[ACanadianLiberal]

274. Hay, the link to the $4.3 payment is broken

Fect checking: How do you know she is paying back her loan? Source please. Thanks

[jgraz]

275. Yeah, fricking huff post moved the page after the edit period expired

I already re-posted the link, but it's lost in the noise.

Here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/mark-penns-firm-paid-4_n_85192.html

[ACanadianLiberal]

277. Thanks for the swift response!

Do you implicitly indicated that Obama has not paid anything to his advisors or consultants?

[jgraz]

278. I said nothing of the sort

I don't like the fact that Hillary's bill to a scumbag like Penn is approaching $6 million and she's coming forward with a sob story about having to loan money to her own campaign.

[Divine Discontent]

282. ouch. n/t

[ileus]

285. I only donate to people I owe money...

[dave123williams]

286. Paranoid much?

Have another bong hit. You'll feel better.

[jgraz]

312. I've dealt with the Clintons since 92. You can never be too paranoid with these people.

[Hyper_Eye]

288. This is absurd

I have never posted a good thing here about Hillary (considering my incredible post count I am sure your stunned... look at my join date, which is about a year after I started my daily lurking, before you jump on me) but I have to say that this is absolutely absurd. The campaign needed money and she loaned money out of her personal finances to the campaign. I don't see what the big deal is. If the campaign is able to pay her back for the loan then the campaign will have exactly the same amount of money it would of had without the loan but the campaign will be able to continue over the rough spot. If the campaign can't pay her back then she is out 5 million dollars.

You want her to just throw in the towel and give up because she ran out of money despite the fact that she can afford to continue her campaign? I will tell you what I would like to see. Considering the two candidates are pretty even right now I would like to see more of the country get a chance to vote and make their decision. Then Barack, if he is going to win, will have won the nomination with the support of his party and other American voters that choose to cast a vote on a democratic ballot.

[karlrschneider]

289. jeezus, you used to be intelligent and sane!

What the hell happened?
:scared:

[jgraz]

309. Sir, I take exception to the scurrilous accusation that I ever used to be sane

[karlrschneider]

321. LOL!! Okay, you totally wrecked me with that one.

:D :P :rofl:
:toast:

[classof56]

290. I be neither a Clinton supporter or donator, but I am SO tired of these threads...

rarely weigh in on them, but right now I'm putting you on my ignore list and then I'm off to celebrate my birthday. Starting my eighth decade on this earth, still holding out some hope future decades might be better in the USoA!

Tired Old Cynic

[AnotherMother4Peace]

291. For a minute I thought I was logged onto FreeRepublic - but no, it's DU with RW talking points. n/t

[Yael]

294. RW talking points?

Nah -- progressives have one list and they have a completely different one.

This would be from the progressive talking point list.

:hi:

[desertflamingo]

292. not a hillary fan, but...

this op smells to high heaven of sour grapes or a simple, nasty attempt to smear a candidate you don't like. i don't like it. i don't like shitty politics and what you're doing has a very familiar ring to it. hillary loaned her campaign money to further a cause apparently a bunch of people still believe in because they're still donating. better than my man edwards asking for donations to reach a benchmark only a day or two before he suspended his campaign. what about those donations from the little people? i don't hold it against him, it's how the game works. but still people who gave what little they had gave it for nothing. at least hillary's supporters got to vote for her in super tuesday and she did very well. she put her money in to further her campaign and now would like the loan paid back - or no. so fucking what? there are strict laws about campaign finance and for you to make up shit to smear a candidate you don't like is imho chickenshit. sorry to be so blunt, but i'm sick of this bullcrap. there're no doubt other accusations you can make against hillary, but not this one. you're grasping at straws.

STILL AN EDWARDIAN

[dsharp88]

299. OP is WRONG! It was paid back within 48 hrs. And I'm not a supporter either

I was for Edwards, and now I'm with Obama. But the OP is just plain incorrect on this point.

[jgraz]

308. Hillary is running such a scam on her supporters

I'd like to see a link supporting your claim, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were true.

[dsharp88]

320. Here's the link... paid back in 2 days...

From NewsHounds, the fantastic group who points out all the lies on Fox "News"...

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/02/07/time_to_go_after_hillary_again_on_fox_shes_broke.php

[jgraz]

322. Yeah, this is starting to look more and more like a scam

A two-day loan? For $5 million??? Sounds like the accusations that this was a fundraising dodge have some merit to them.

[rucognizant]

296. It is annoying as hell!

While madly e-mailing Louy Dobbs for being critical of Harry Reid ( he finally got some backbone) for "obstructing" the stimulus package to include Seniors,& vets; also eating my dinner, I got 2 robocalls
from CLinton inviting me to her appearance locally on Sat.
Yes I was planning to go, but my diesel rabbit came down with a serious case of "blown head gasket or "motor replacement" today, requiring $1,000. - $2,000. worth of repairs. I doubt I will be going anywhere for several weeks, & I have aan illustration job that requires a 60 mile round trip to collaborate & to return the 1 gig memory card I got for my nikon coolpix 950, which is too large & doesn't work! At least Radio Shack is a reputable "old fashioned" company that will return my money, even tho I opened the package & tried to use it!
San Disk has discontinued the smaller one, ( so I'll rush out & buy a fancier one to fit the memory card?)


My friend called me to see how many times Hillary had called me!

[tandem5]

298. no point to this thread at all.

[IndieLeft]

302. I'm not surprised. She's a warmonger.

I think given all the information that's out there, no one is really surprised that she would stoop to that level. I don't think it's illegal but it may hover around deceptive but look she's a politician. She's used the political calculus before.

All those people who were angry at Bush for taking us to war in Iraq have forgotten that it was her war authorization that enabled him.

She is really just a continuation of all the bad policies we've had before. Using dirty political tricks to march into the White House. Somehow you hope that this will not work.

I think Obama's message will eventually resonate with the majority of Americans. Some people still don't believe Bush led this country down a dark corridor. Some people don't think that Hillary is an established political operative. They see her as a potential first female president without looking clearly at her policies. She's been wrong on many points but some people love her in spite of it.

To wit, I think majority of the people are tired of her brand of politics. It showed in Super Tuesday. She was supposed to sock Obama away in Iowa. And it didn't happen. The more we see of her and her tactics the better Obama looks.

All of you Edwards supporters might want to jump on the Obama bus because Clinton is not going to take you where you want to go... that is not unless you advocate more of the same. She espouses wars, regime changes and her votes are the determining factor for this point of view.

She falls into that mindset of using men and women as tools for regime change while she tries to mandate health care. Get it? Soldiers that she's using to fight wars don't get health care if their dead.

She also tells you that she wants to end poverty but her vote for the bankruptcy bill undermines that belief.

She's is not a change candidate. she is the establishment candidate who wants to keep the same old politics going.

Obama offers a new kind of politics. A smarter brand. Non-interventionist. There will be no more regime changes under him. It wasn't necessary before. It's not necessary now.

I vote Obama for true change. She's just more of the same.

Yes WE CAN.

[AikidoSoul]

306. The OP appears to be delusional

I'm not a Hillary supporter -- but this is crap.

[cbayer]

313. This OP and thread is helping me prove my current theory:

Number of recommendations is inversely proportional to value of OP and thread.
Who recommends this tripe? You people are truly boring.

[BrightKnight]

314. ...pocketing campaign contributions? I would seek legal assistance if you posted

that assertion about me. - n/t

[Miss Chybil]

315. What a weird post. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

316. Of All The Stupid Shit Posted Here The Last Few Days, This One Might Take The Cake.

Just when you think threads couldn't get any more stupid. Holy cow.

[cloud75]

317. i can't believe the b.s. DU is now allowing it is sinking fast. n/t

[RetroLounge]

323. Wow. The stupidity here actually *can* get worse...

please remove the Edwards Avatar. It's embarrasing to him when someone posts this stupid drivel...

I'm not even a Hillary supporter but I think I'll send her some cash now.

RL

[pingzing58]

324. JGRAZ is an obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot, obamabot

[jgraz]

325. Yes, that's why I have him as my avatar

:eyes:

[mentalsolstice]

328. That's okay with me.

As a person with a disability, the 1st Clinton era was a prosperous and hopeful time (dare I say "hope" these days) for me. I have no problem giving back to them.

[TankLV]

329. No asshole - it's REIMBURSING her campaign - so it's STILL a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION...

Go spew your hatred someplace else...

[jgraz]

331. No asshole? Seriously? You have no asshole???

Well, that explains all the shit that comes out your mouth.

[TankLV]

337. um - no YOU'RE the asshole...

since you have trouble reading, too...

and an IDIOT to boot...

[jgraz]

338. And apparently you also have no sense of humor

That's ok. I'd be grumpy too if I had to shit out my mouth.