WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2008
Clinton Loaned Campaign $5M
Democratic Candidate Loaned Money Late Last Month
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Race Goes On For Democrats
It was a neck-and-neck race for the Democrats, with both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claiming the better Super Tuesday finish. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Video
Hillary Congratulates Obama
"CBS News RAW": Speaking to a frenzied crowd of supporters in New York, N.Y., Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., congratulated her main rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on his Super Tuesday wins.
-
Video
More Votes, Less Delegates?
Super Tuesday could give Hillary Clinton more votes but leave Barack Obama with more delegates. Jeff Greenfield and Bob Schieffer explain how this works and what's ahead for the Democratic race.
-
Interactive
The Money Race
See the latest campaign finance tallies from Obama and McCain.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Clinton
A look at a life and career full of firsts.
Clinton told reporters at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., that she made the loan, adding, "I believe the campaign would have a great month fundraising in January. We intended to be competitive and we were."
Obama, riding a wave of fundraising both from large donors and small Internet contributors, collected a stunning $32 million in January. Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said the Clinton campaign raised only $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said.
On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign set a new goal of raising $3 million over the next three days through the Internet.
"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," said Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson.
In a teleconference with reporters, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said: "We will have funds to compete," he said, "but we're likely to be outspent again."
Hillary and Bill Clintons' financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.
Clinton's name recognition and lead in polls in some of the bigger upcoming states give her an advantage and Obama's higher spending rate did not translate into victories in several states Tuesday.
But the terrain ahead features contests in the short term that are favorable to Obama. On Saturday, Obama and Clinton will compete in contests in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington. On Tuesday, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia hold primaries.
The Clinton camp is counting on March 4 matchups in Ohio and Texas and an April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. All three are expensive states in which to campaign.
Obama's camp signaled that he was ready to invest money in those states as well. "We think we're in strong financial position so if we choose to do so in the later states we'll have the ability to do that," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.
Clinton spent $15 million in December going into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign spent at least $9 million in the last two weeks of January advertising in Super Tuesday states. Obama spent about $11 million in Super Tuesday advertising.
Clinton raised $23.7 million in the last quarter of 2007 for the primary elections compared to Obama's $22 million. Both had about $18.5 million cash on hand for the primaries going into January. But Obama roared to a fundraising lead in January by collecting money at the rate of at least $1 million a day and attracting more than 170,000 new donors.
Obama also has a money advantage because he has raised more money from small donations than Clinton. An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 CommentsBut if an elderly person needs medication and medicare doesn''t pay? They go without.
If someone needs a surgery and doesn''t have the funds? They can go die somewhere.
If the foster care children and the elderly and deformed and the veterans of wars live like rats in a garbage pile, no one cares.
But have a election campaign and the runners cannot get out there fast enough to raise millions for THEIR campaign.
Not sure I will ever vote on anyone for any reason ever again. Go to H-LL, all of you.
Posted by CANYOUTELLME at 04:43 PM : Feb 06, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hilary is a package of lies and cons with a sick smile on the front of the box. Has she cried recently?
The increase in support for Hillary Clinton at the national level that Gallup saw in interviewing conducted Sunday and Monday continued in interviewing Tuesday night. Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted Feb. 3-5 now includes three consecutive days in which Clinton has done well, giving her a 13-percentage point lead over Barack Obama, 52% to 39%.
Democratic preferences in Tuesday night''s interviews -- mostly conducted before Super Tuesday election results were known -- were similar to Sunday and Monday night''s intervi
Not to worry Hillary money is on the way........
vote Republican.....I will not vote!
Although it only pays $400k a year, it is not the money, but the power that the position has. Rommey is also spending millions of his own money. But it is the most powerful job on planet earth.
Posted by MHegwood
Bill and Hill have been living off of the peoples money for so long, have they ever worked a hard day? They''re power hungry and the Dems just keep on buying into their promises.
Posted by jh6379
Why? Convince me please.
Because they would rather take your money and "fix" our country''s problems. They are all power hungry.
They serve only what is in their best interest, POWER and MONEY!
How many poor or "middle class" National/Federal based politicians do you know.
Interesting she has not been able to adequately manage the finances of her campaign. She neither can raise adequate revenue nor balance the budget.
I think Mr. Romney has spent $35 million of his own money. Same question???
Lest ye forget she has a powerful career of her own. Why wouldn''t she have it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by katg21 at 05:42 PM : Feb 06, 2008
Because, she is smart, steadfast, devoted to politics and the American people. Why does anybody want to be president?
She has been working towards the good of children and the American people her whole adult life. She has a tremendous legal mind, and a great deal of experience moving and promomting legislation, and the ability to function as a great diplomat.
Maybe she took the money from her and Bill''s bogus Legal Defense Fund.
Bill always cried and complained about how broke they were. Must be rough when you can only spare $5 Million to loan your campaign.
Two provisions of the MCA
First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:
The MCA%u2019s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by republic1776 at 05:50 PM : Feb 06, 2008
None. Most politicians are very power and wealthy people. Haven''t you noticed?
First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is "that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law."[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:
The MCA%u2019s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.[33]
SHOW ME ONE THING IN THE LEG/ THAT SHE STARTED AND GOT PASS INTO LAW..JUST ONE THAT HELPS AMERICA/AMERICANS...
PLEASE SHOW US????????????????????????????
SHE IS A PIG.....................................
73 percent more Dem voted yesterday then did Republicans, LOL hahahaha
Interesting she has not been able to adequately manage the finances of her campaign. She neither can raise adequate revenue nor balance the budget.
Posted by donbl1 at 05:53 PM : Feb 06, 2008
Beats having to get life insurance like McCain had to when he got a loan for his campaign...
Barack used Super Tuesday to narrow the delegate gap, and bankrupt Hillary.
Not so stupid for negro.
LOL
Who of the candidates isn''t? That doesn''t make her the most qualified.
"... But we ought not %u2014 we will not %u2014 travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
------------
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."
"The enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution."
"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it."
"How could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men, women, and children?"
Oh where, oh where were my Hillary tears when I needed thou?
Voting on Iraq War is like eating jellybeans, "you can tell a lot about a fella''s character..."
The Neocons know it will take Obama a good three years to figure out how to navigate the system to actually get something accomplished!
What do you think Clinton would have done if 9/11 happened on his watch? I don''t believe he would have done one thing different. Hell, his wife even voted for going into Iraq. Why is it that you Clinton LOvers are so quick to give him a pass on all of the *** he did? He LIED UNDER OATH! That is breaking the law need I remind you. If you had done the same you''d be in jail. Why do you believe him to be above the law?
I don''t understand why Presidency is so important to her ? She could help people some other way, because she''s senator."
Posted by vivaviva80
Yes, I believe this too - that''s the cardinal rule of fiscal responsibility: if you can''t afford it, don''t spend the money. Having less money should have been an opportunity for her campaign to get creative about getting free advertising. Besides, the Huckabee/Romney results from SuperTuesday show that money will never trump message.
And yeah, I feel like if you''re really about helping people then a title shouldn''t matter, especially when they''ve got the Clinton name to open so many doors for them.
But then again, she''s only ''loaned'' the money to her campaign - I guess she''s not really planning on spending her own money, she''s expecting voters to foot the bill (?) I''m not sure what the plan is for her because there''s always another battle around the corner that''s going to need $. So when does she make back the $? I guess she considers it an ''investment'' in the sense that even if she loses, she''ll be able to get book deals and speaking engagements which''ll make the money back (?)
Posted by hawksprings at 06:24 PM : Feb 06, 2008
Uh....that was over 20 years ago. Aren''t you wealthier than you were 20 years ago ? Intelligent people with serious careers usually are. What''s the problem ?
The Neocons know it will take Obama a good three years to figure out how to navigate the system to actually get something accomplished!"
Posted by CitizenUSA
Do you REALLY believe it was the ''vast, right-wing conspiracy'' at work again? Like you already pointed out, it didn''t exist the last time . . .
Besides, the neo-cons are all hoping Hillary wins the nomination because they think she''d be easier to beat . . .
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 06:30 PM : Feb 06, 2008
Hillary Clinton sponsored more legislation PER YEAR than any other of the 546 members of the House or the Senate. (reference: www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/repstats/enacted.xml)
Bills typically take a long time to actually get enacted, as the statistics show.
Posted by libra127
So then wasn''t it in poor taste of her to be busting Edwards'' chops for not having ever accomplished anything during his time in Congress? Especially if she hasn''t accomplished anything herself?
---
Obama''s campaign manager stated on Tuesday that only 3% of the Obama donors are "maxed out" while half of Hillary''s are yet he still raised 2 1/2 times what Hilary did in January.
I''m thinking she''s gonna be breaking out that checkbook again soon.....
How can Clinton fix the economy when she raised of 100 million dollars and has run out in a few months. That isn''t the kind of fiscal responsibility we need.
Ding dong the witch is dead
Obama 08
The republicans want Hillary to win, she is their only chance to win. Obama will wipe the floor with the GOP, Clinton would barely win or barley lose.
The very idea of the right wing conspiracy is the problem with CLinton. Its not a conspiracy, she is an awful person
On the flip side, Republicans are voting for Obama because of his message and honesty, not because they think they can beat him in NOV.
------------------------------
Now I guess the question is what will have to be done to pay these people back for all this money. American politics are truly in shambles when both Clinton and Obama raise this much money while Edwards (who did not accept this payback for favors money) is out of the race. Simply abhorrent. I guess I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 Comments