Clinton's money (Read between the lines)
Howard Wolfson responds to the underground questions (like mine) about the Clinton campaign's fundraising. Take a minute to read between the lines.
Okay, so first, the question wasn't about February fundraising, was it? That was a record Clinton month, but she ended it almost broke. What we want to know, is how is it going now?
Maybe I'm wrong, but "continuing to raise a considerable amount" sounds like it's not as good as last month, and the emphasis on the internet makes me wonder if the big donors may be pulling back. (Also, there's not enough money to advertise beyond the next contest?)
(And, the stories reporting that the Clinton campaign has not payed small vendors or their health insurance bills don't help. Do they pay them now out of current funds because of scrutiny?)
This may be a nothing issue, their money may be fine, but it may also be seized on as a barometer of the campaign's health, and the Clinton campaign is not in a position where it can survive much that reinforces the image of a campaign fading.
(I don't think there's any requirement for reporting this month, so it's all statements and assessments.)
“Our cash flow is good. Bills are being paid. We are continuing to raise a considerable amount of money. We had the best fundraising month in the campaign's history last month,” said Wolfson on MSNBC. “We are continuing to do well this month. The support that we’re receiving over the Internet especially is very, very strong.”....
he.... acknowledged that the former first lady is not yet on the air in Indiana and North Carolina, instead focusing on winning Pennsylvania.
“If we had the money, we'd be advertising everywhere in the country,” Wolfson said, adding, “I'm sure even the Obama campaign, as well-funded as it is, would love to have more. But we are going to have what we need for what we need to do.”
Okay, so first, the question wasn't about February fundraising, was it? That was a record Clinton month, but she ended it almost broke. What we want to know, is how is it going now?
Maybe I'm wrong, but "continuing to raise a considerable amount" sounds like it's not as good as last month, and the emphasis on the internet makes me wonder if the big donors may be pulling back. (Also, there's not enough money to advertise beyond the next contest?)
(And, the stories reporting that the Clinton campaign has not payed small vendors or their health insurance bills don't help. Do they pay them now out of current funds because of scrutiny?)
This may be a nothing issue, their money may be fine, but it may also be seized on as a barometer of the campaign's health, and the Clinton campaign is not in a position where it can survive much that reinforces the image of a campaign fading.
(I don't think there's any requirement for reporting this month, so it's all statements and assessments.)
posted by mikevotes at
4:54 PM
4 Comments:
This sounds a little dodgy to me. Anything over lunch money could be considered "a considerable amount." It's a non-answer. Couple that with the "if we had the money" comment and I don't think you even have to read between the lines.
The stories (rumors?) of the Clinton campaign not paying bills is kind of a pedestrian story line. I'm sure most campaigns not flush with cash have the same problems. The real story would be the non-payment of health insurance bills, since this is her signature issue: universal health care. It also calls into question her willingness to put other people ahead of her personal self interest (letting people go uninsured in her power-quest). If she's willing to do this to her own people, how can I, a lowly nobody from Main St. USA, trust her to stand by me if the political going gets tough?
Maybe there's no there there, but I personally don't have much faith in her words. It's a matter of trust, and while I believe Hillary wants to do the things she says, I'm not convinced of the whole "fighter" thing.... at lest when personal political objective are also on the line.
By
-epm, at 6:53 PM
I think the not paying bills is more "dickish" than anything. I think it's just putting those people off because they can, not unable to pay, because they raised $33 million in Feb which would have been enough to even up with everybody and still run basically the same show.
(And, importantly, they weren't uninsured at any point. They were just late with payments. The company was hung.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:19 PM
I should have been clearer in my comment. While I didn't know for sure, I assumed that no one was turned away form their doctor's office due to lack of coverage. I was spinning the perception a bit.
My larger point is, Hillary will shove the "little people" aside in the name of personal political expediency. The health insurance bills are, to me, indicative of her lack of sincerity, give universal health insurance is a key plank in her pitch to the American voter.
By
-epm, at 8:41 AM
That's what the little vendors are saying in the states where she's so far stiffed them.
By
mikevotes, at 11:30 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home