Clinton already "loaned" her campaign $5 million in January
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson:
Wow. That does not give the sheen of momentum.
Also: Clinton staff working without pay?
And, pushing her website at speeches is all about fundraising.
Clinton is emphasizing that the loan came from "her" money, (not from Bill Clinton's post-White House financial dealings?)
The narrative is getting away from her.
Later: I thought I heard somewhere that that Hallmark channel thing cost her $4 million.
Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million.The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy.
Wow. That does not give the sheen of momentum.
Also: Clinton staff working without pay?
And, pushing her website at speeches is all about fundraising.
Clinton is emphasizing that the loan came from "her" money, (not from Bill Clinton's post-White House financial dealings?)
The narrative is getting away from her.
Later: I thought I heard somewhere that that Hallmark channel thing cost her $4 million.
posted by mikevotes at
4:02 PM
11 Comments:
Wow. This is amazing and speak volumes, I think, about her appeal in a general election.
On the other hand, as the establishment candidate with universal name recognition, she probably doesn't need the dough in the same way Obama does. After all, Hillary hasn't had to dispel whisper campaign nonsense that she's a sleeper Muslim radical educated in madrasa, or that she refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or...
Still, this has got to have the smell of blood among the punitocracy.
By
-epm, at 8:34 PM
Yeah, but she does need money. Money stops momentum.
I was also thinking though that they announced this, even though it technically wouldn't have been publicly reported until March 31, so there might be a play here.
They're trying to claim Obama is the establishment candidate and maybe this plays into the underdog theme.
I'm not so sure about that idea, but I'm putting it out there.
By
mikevotes, at 10:29 PM
When you're dealing with politicians at this level (essentially their entire adult lives have been in the political sphere) you have to figure every drip of volunteered information has a calculated purposes. I'm not being critical. I'm just suggesting this is a product of "thirty-five years of experience."
What it means, however, I have no idea. I could even make an argument it could be setting the narrative for a withdrawal... just as a contingency. "We gave it all we had, including five million dollars of my own money. I'm not a quitter, but even after depleting my own savings, fighting to bring your voice to the White House, it's now clear..."
Who knows in these curious times.
By
-epm, at 11:10 PM
That's an interesting idea.
If nothing else, it allows a plausible, non-candidate reason for losing the next several primaries.
By
mikevotes, at 7:14 AM
The Clintons are heavily spinning the new narrative that they are the scrappy, outsider underdogs, and Obama is the establishment candidate. How they're able to do this with a straight face is beyond me (again, 35 yrs of experience kicking in). Releasing the self-financing figures plays into that.
Obama's return volley could be to point out that he is receiving smaller contributions from a sea of individuals, and that Hillary's donor base is deep pocketed two-percenters. Though I doubt Obama would make such an unsubtle tit-for-tat rebuttal.
By
-epm, at 8:13 AM
Right. But the coverage so far of the claims of underdog has all been done with a smirk.
We'll have to see how it plays out with time, but this showing of weakness does lower the bar alot.
Now, she can claim victory from ties, "outfunded and outspent by the Obama campaign."
By
mikevotes, at 8:17 AM
It just occurred to me: you don't become the underdog by being bested by the underdog. You just become the loser.
(Just talking about the argument. Not calling Hillary a loser. Not yet anyway.)
By
-epm, at 10:04 AM
I dunno. In the malleable world of politics....
Look at McCain who went from frontrunner to dead to "Mac is back."
(Now he's frontrunner again so again they hate him.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:44 AM
That was a long arc, my friend. And the result of a very, very different dynamic going on in the GOP.
Hillary hasn't been adding new supporters, but she's got an extremely loyal base. She simply needs to buck-up this base in the states still to come.
It doesn't matter if the punitocracy doesn't buy into the "underdog" spin -- or even if they ridicule it. All that matters is that she gets sympathy and support from her base. Indeed, if the punitocracy ridicules the underdog spin, this will only strengthen Hillary's base. They seem very protective (defensive?) of her and often see her as a victim in the political exchange.
So the underdog thing could be for "domestic consumption," so to speak and not so much for the general public.
By
-epm, at 11:13 AM
I'm going to repost that comment on the post above (Obama fundraising) so that we're not carrying on the same conversation in two places.
By
mikevotes, at 1:22 PM
http://technologiesuae.com/#pill order xanax online overnight - pictures of generic xanax
By
Anonymous, at 9:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home