G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
How Far Will the Clintons Go?
By Robert Parry
Created Feb 16 2008 - 11:31am
Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior
"ready on Day One" management skills, burned through almost $130 million of
campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds,
and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to
raise more money.
Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law - as some backers
consider putting money into "independent" entities that can spend unlimited
sums but aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaign - while other ideas
are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the
pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.
Sen. Clinton's new scramble for money - as well as her campaign's
declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected
Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination - raise the
question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to
achieve their presidential restoration.
Some Democrats, who have e-mailed me, praise the ruthlessness of the Clinton
political machine, arguing that only a readiness to throw sharp elbows can
defeat the Republicans this fall. These Democrats hate what they call Barack
Obama's "Kumbayah" message of national reconciliation, a reference to the
campfire song based on an old African spiritual.
However, other Democrats fear that the Clintons are putting their personal
ambitions ahead of what's good for the party and the country, that they are
ready to dirty up Sen. Obama with attack ads and dismiss his millions of
supporters as - what one key Clinton backer called - "a cult of
personality."
If the Clintons overturn the majority will, the Democratic convention in
Denver could bring to mind the infamous Chicago convention in 1968 when the
Democratic establishment imposed its favored candidate, Vice President
Hubert Humphrey, on a rebellious rank-and-file, contributing to the election
of Republican Richard Nixon.
Though a repeat of the 1968 violence is unlikely, a Clinton-driven
insistence that the will of Democratic voters be cast aside could alienate
millions of young people and independents who have rallied to Sen. Obama's
message of political change. [For details on the comparison to 1968, see
Consortiumnews.com's "Stomping on Their Children's Dreams [1]."]
In a conference call to reporters this week, Sen. Clinton's communications
director, Howard Wolfson, made clear that the campaign was prepared to rely
on her superior support among the 796 "superdelegates" - party insiders and
government officials - to overcome Obama's lead among delegates chosen
through primaries and caucuses.
"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to
win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,"
Wolfson said, adding that the Clinton campaign would make no distinction
between the caucus/primary delegates and the "superdelegates."
"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," Wolfson said. [Boston
Globe, Feb. 13, 2008 [2]]
Senior strategist Mark Penn also indicated that the Clinton campaign would
press the issue of seating pro-Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan,
where she won unauthorized primaries conducted after the national party
barred the states from holding contests before Feb. 5 and after other major
candidates agreed not to compete.
The Money Race
The Clinton campaign also is appealing for substantial sums of money to
spend on advertisements in upcoming primary states: Texas, Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 13 that some of Sen. Clinton's top
fund-raisers, who have "maxed out" at the individual limit of $2,300 and
have tapped out their personal network of donors, are consulting with
lawyers about how they can create "independent" groups that can spend
unlimited money in support of her campaign.
Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing company, was weighing
whether to start her own entity for buying ads to promote Clinton or to put
money into an existing pro-Clinton organization, like the feminist political
organization Emily's List which has already spent about $1 million on
Clinton's behalf, the Journal reported.
"We all feel very passionate about it, so the question is, what is the best
thing we can do to get her across the finish line?" Buell told the Journal.
The Journal interviewed another Clinton fund-raiser, who declined to be
named but who said he might spend $500,000 on pro-Clinton television, radio
and newspaper ads.
As the Journal noted, however, "It's not certain that any of the efforts by
the Clinton fund-raisers will get off the ground [because] campaign-finance
law makes it difficult for campaign insiders to fund independent efforts to
elect candidates." [WSJ, Feb. 13, 2008 [3]]
"Independent" campaign initiatives carry both legal and political risks.
Not only would a new group have to convince Federal Election Commission
lawyers that it is not collaborating with the candidate, the tactic also
might remind Democrats of how pro-Republican "independent" organizations,
such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, attacked - or "swift-boated" - Sen.
John Kerry's Vietnam War record.
On the other hand, some hyper-partisan Democrats might laud Sen. Clinton for
resorting to hardball tactics that have worked for Republicans.
AIPAC Appeal
The Clinton team also was shaking the money trees in more traditional ways.
For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby
when the AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street
Journal reported on Feb. 14 [4].
AIPAC wields its legendary influence in Washington, in large part, because
of its ability to pour money into cash-strapped political campaigns.
A longtime Democratic operative once recounted an anecdote to explain how
AIPAC has amassed its extraordinary clout. He recalled a situation when he
was working for a powerful House committee chairman who normally ran
unopposed but found himself facing a well-financed Republican challenger.
Unaccustomed to raising large sums of campaign cash, the senior Democrat
asked some of his aides to reach out to people they knew. One call was made
to AIPAC chief Thomas Dine, who assured the congressman that there was no
need to worry.
Suddenly, campaign contributions were pouring in from all over the country,
from AIPAC's network of donors. With that one phone call, the congressman's
financial problems were solved, assuring both his reelection and his
gratitude to AIPAC.
However, given the political sensitivity of the Iraq War - and AIPAC's
perceived support for neoconservative strategies in the Middle East - many
rank-and-file Democrats view the pro-Israel organization with greater
suspicion these days.
But the Clinton campaign apparently feels the risk in reaching out to AIPAC
is worth the reward.
Sen. Clinton's money scramble also has raised eyebrows about the sources of
the Clinton family income. The New York Times' Feb. 15 lead editorial [5]
urged Clinton and Sen. John McCain to join Sen. Obama in releasing tax
returns that provide details not included in annual congressional disclosure
forms.
"The need for greater transparency regarding the income and overall
financial dealings of candidates and their spouses was underscored by Mrs.
Clinton's recent decision to make a $5 million loan to her campaign," the
Times wrote. "The campaign said the money came from her share of the
Clintons' joint resources, and that calls attention to the lack of
information about their family finances.
"As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually
giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his
business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to
reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is unencumbered by hidden
entanglements."
On Feb. 9 at Consortiumnews.com, we published an article that made a similar
point, noting that the Clintons have amassed virtually their entire
multi-million-dollar fortune (estimated at around $30 million) in the seven
years after leaving the White House.
While some of that money is explained from book contracts, the bulk of the
family's post-presidential income appears to come from Bill Clinton's
lucrative speaking engagements and financial deals with political backers.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Hillary's Curious Campaign Loan [6]."]
The larger campaign question, however, may be whether the Clintons will set
any limits on their hunger to return to the White House - and whether
Democrats will view that single-minded determination as a plus or a minus.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Robert Parry
Created Feb 16 2008 - 11:31am
Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior
"ready on Day One" management skills, burned through almost $130 million of
campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds,
and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to
raise more money.
Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law - as some backers
consider putting money into "independent" entities that can spend unlimited
sums but aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaign - while other ideas
are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the
pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.
Sen. Clinton's new scramble for money - as well as her campaign's
declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected
Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination - raise the
question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to
achieve their presidential restoration.
Some Democrats, who have e-mailed me, praise the ruthlessness of the Clinton
political machine, arguing that only a readiness to throw sharp elbows can
defeat the Republicans this fall. These Democrats hate what they call Barack
Obama's "Kumbayah" message of national reconciliation, a reference to the
campfire song based on an old African spiritual.
However, other Democrats fear that the Clintons are putting their personal
ambitions ahead of what's good for the party and the country, that they are
ready to dirty up Sen. Obama with attack ads and dismiss his millions of
supporters as - what one key Clinton backer called - "a cult of
personality."
If the Clintons overturn the majority will, the Democratic convention in
Denver could bring to mind the infamous Chicago convention in 1968 when the
Democratic establishment imposed its favored candidate, Vice President
Hubert Humphrey, on a rebellious rank-and-file, contributing to the election
of Republican Richard Nixon.
Though a repeat of the 1968 violence is unlikely, a Clinton-driven
insistence that the will of Democratic voters be cast aside could alienate
millions of young people and independents who have rallied to Sen. Obama's
message of political change. [For details on the comparison to 1968, see
Consortiumnews.com's "Stomping on Their Children's Dreams [1]."]
In a conference call to reporters this week, Sen. Clinton's communications
director, Howard Wolfson, made clear that the campaign was prepared to rely
on her superior support among the 796 "superdelegates" - party insiders and
government officials - to overcome Obama's lead among delegates chosen
through primaries and caucuses.
"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to
win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,"
Wolfson said, adding that the Clinton campaign would make no distinction
between the caucus/primary delegates and the "superdelegates."
"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," Wolfson said. [Boston
Globe, Feb. 13, 2008 [2]]
Senior strategist Mark Penn also indicated that the Clinton campaign would
press the issue of seating pro-Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan,
where she won unauthorized primaries conducted after the national party
barred the states from holding contests before Feb. 5 and after other major
candidates agreed not to compete.
The Money Race
The Clinton campaign also is appealing for substantial sums of money to
spend on advertisements in upcoming primary states: Texas, Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 13 that some of Sen. Clinton's top
fund-raisers, who have "maxed out" at the individual limit of $2,300 and
have tapped out their personal network of donors, are consulting with
lawyers about how they can create "independent" groups that can spend
unlimited money in support of her campaign.
Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing company, was weighing
whether to start her own entity for buying ads to promote Clinton or to put
money into an existing pro-Clinton organization, like the feminist political
organization Emily's List which has already spent about $1 million on
Clinton's behalf, the Journal reported.
"We all feel very passionate about it, so the question is, what is the best
thing we can do to get her across the finish line?" Buell told the Journal.
The Journal interviewed another Clinton fund-raiser, who declined to be
named but who said he might spend $500,000 on pro-Clinton television, radio
and newspaper ads.
As the Journal noted, however, "It's not certain that any of the efforts by
the Clinton fund-raisers will get off the ground [because] campaign-finance
law makes it difficult for campaign insiders to fund independent efforts to
elect candidates." [WSJ, Feb. 13, 2008 [3]]
"Independent" campaign initiatives carry both legal and political risks.
Not only would a new group have to convince Federal Election Commission
lawyers that it is not collaborating with the candidate, the tactic also
might remind Democrats of how pro-Republican "independent" organizations,
such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, attacked - or "swift-boated" - Sen.
John Kerry's Vietnam War record.
On the other hand, some hyper-partisan Democrats might laud Sen. Clinton for
resorting to hardball tactics that have worked for Republicans.
AIPAC Appeal
The Clinton team also was shaking the money trees in more traditional ways.
For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby
when the AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street
Journal reported on Feb. 14 [4].
AIPAC wields its legendary influence in Washington, in large part, because
of its ability to pour money into cash-strapped political campaigns.
A longtime Democratic operative once recounted an anecdote to explain how
AIPAC has amassed its extraordinary clout. He recalled a situation when he
was working for a powerful House committee chairman who normally ran
unopposed but found himself facing a well-financed Republican challenger.
Unaccustomed to raising large sums of campaign cash, the senior Democrat
asked some of his aides to reach out to people they knew. One call was made
to AIPAC chief Thomas Dine, who assured the congressman that there was no
need to worry.
Suddenly, campaign contributions were pouring in from all over the country,
from AIPAC's network of donors. With that one phone call, the congressman's
financial problems were solved, assuring both his reelection and his
gratitude to AIPAC.
However, given the political sensitivity of the Iraq War - and AIPAC's
perceived support for neoconservative strategies in the Middle East - many
rank-and-file Democrats view the pro-Israel organization with greater
suspicion these days.
But the Clinton campaign apparently feels the risk in reaching out to AIPAC
is worth the reward.
Sen. Clinton's money scramble also has raised eyebrows about the sources of
the Clinton family income. The New York Times' Feb. 15 lead editorial [5]
urged Clinton and Sen. John McCain to join Sen. Obama in releasing tax
returns that provide details not included in annual congressional disclosure
forms.
"The need for greater transparency regarding the income and overall
financial dealings of candidates and their spouses was underscored by Mrs.
Clinton's recent decision to make a $5 million loan to her campaign," the
Times wrote. "The campaign said the money came from her share of the
Clintons' joint resources, and that calls attention to the lack of
information about their family finances.
"As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually
giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his
business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to
reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is unencumbered by hidden
entanglements."
On Feb. 9 at Consortiumnews.com, we published an article that made a similar
point, noting that the Clintons have amassed virtually their entire
multi-million-dollar fortune (estimated at around $30 million) in the seven
years after leaving the White House.
While some of that money is explained from book contracts, the bulk of the
family's post-presidential income appears to come from Bill Clinton's
lucrative speaking engagements and financial deals with political backers.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Hillary's Curious Campaign Loan [6]."]
The larger campaign question, however, may be whether the Clintons will set
any limits on their hunger to return to the White House - and whether
Democrats will view that single-minded determination as a plus or a minus.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson