Heavy Sledding Ahead Says Clinton Insider

-

A Clinton insider sent me this note early this morning — agreeing with part of my take on yesterday’s Super Tuesday outcome:

surge story ended, but money story begins. heavy sledding ahead

Now the news has broken that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million. To some degree, that’s not a big deal. Wait — I’m reversing myself; that is a big deal. The fact remains that Barack Obama isn’t having to loan himself anything right now.
One of the odd moments of the day is that campaign director Howard Wolfson seemed unaware that the Clinton load had taken place during a 10:30 am conference call this morning when queried by Politico‘s Ben Smith. How could Wolfson not have known? Or did he know and was surprised others did too? Makes no sense.
Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei look at other trouble spots for the Clinton machine — but still count me as someone who sees this entire process at dead even for quite a while yet.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

18 comments on “Heavy Sledding Ahead Says Clinton Insider

  1. Mr.Murder says:

    Exelon and Axelrod, nuclear leaks to poison water…
    Obama’s got a lobbyist atop his campaign!

    Reply

  2. Linda says:

    In an effort to get back to more substance since it is to-morrow–and not wanting to give more credence to Morrow (pun intended), I do think that any candidate’s running out of money is significant in several ways. We are chosing a President to handle a big deficit–somebody who will be ready on day one to do that.
    In fact, how all the candidates run and manage their campaigns is one objective thing where we can compare their performance against one another.
    We all have to live within our incomes (or borrow too much), etc. So how are they all doing:
    1. Both McCain and Clinton have run out of money.
    A successful campaign doesn’t do that and plans and budgets effectively.
    2. Romney never had that problem, but I really don’t like candidates like him and Bloomberg who think they can buy the nomination. It should not be for sale.
    3. Obama’s “wealth” came from his first book for which he did not get many millions in advances as the Clintons did. And it was written better by him that either of theirs were. He doesn’t have enough to loan his campaign funds to continue. Also comparing the content of the books says a lot about how emotionally stable, center, and honest he is compared to Hillary.
    4. Ron Paul and Huckabee perform well on this measure too.
    3. Obama is not taking lobbyists’ money.
    4. David Axelrod appears to be much better than Mark Penn at running a campaign.
    So, while I was for Obama since he announced and may not be totally objective, in ways that I can compare all the candidates’ performance, he is way ahead of anybody else in either party.

    Reply

  3. EA says:

    The Robert Morrow’s of the world are out there and will never go away. Wishing them away, trying to “convert” them or convince them is unlikely to yield much. Ignoring them is a form of denial. Let’s be real, the Clintons are hated by many. It seems unjust to all those who have been die-hard FOBs (fans of Bill) and now favor HRC. But America doesn’t need another scandal-laden administration. HRC, even after not making a single ethical flub during any future tenure as president, will remain the anvil of angst for a vast Clinton-hating segment of the population. Scandals, if not present, will be CREATED. We will be diverted from the healing we all need to do.
    It’s time to move beyond the dynasties: Bush and Clinton. They need to SHARE. We need to heal. With millions of families in America surely we can look to more than 2 to lead us.
    HRC, like it or not, will only distract the nation and deepen the divisions. We will go from Bill-hating to Bush-hating to Hillary-hating. This isn’t about giving in to the Robert Morrowoids of the world. This is about turning the page. Let these obsessed haters drool over the last chapter while we write the next.

    Reply

  4. katjam says:

    Is Hillary’s dramatic infusion of cash for effect? She can pretend her upcoming loses are because she cannot financially compete and then she will make a “dramatic comeback” with the March primaries in states that favor her demographics like Ohio. She may indeed need some cash now, but this ploy of lying in the weeds will help her draw sympathy money she would not otherwise attract.

    Reply

  5. LM says:

    Steve,
    Thought you might want to know that Obama has raised $6.7 million online since the polls closed on Super Tuesday (about 33 hours).
    I should also note that the Clintons loan is a HUGE problem. Think about it – their net worth is based primarily in fees Bill has secured – many from foreign influentials and others due to work to influence foreign govs. This money now pops back into the US Presidential cycle….creates some ethical questions don’t you think?
    Also think about this – the Clintons loan say another 10 million (possible) via a note they take out on their property. The campaign ends and Bill pays it off by giving a few speeches abroad.
    Problem?

    Reply

  6. Robert Morrow says:

    Susan, it is not a “smear” if it is the Ugly Truth about Hillary and Bill. Here are some of the classic headlines of the tens of thousands of emails that I have sent out educating and informing Americans about Hillary and Bill.
    Honesty: Hillary’s Glass House – by Stuart Taylor of the National Journal
    Clinton goons nearly murdered Gary Johnson on 6-26-92
    Hillary’s and Jack Palladino’s terror campaign on Kathleen Willey (1997-98)
    Bill Clinton: Drug-addicted, cokehead Governor of Arkansas in 1980’s
    The story of black woman Charlotte Perry – ANOTHER woman abused by the Clintons.
    Here is my Hillary file, culled from over 205+ books and other media
    Hillary quotes: a lifetime of being vulgar, rude, and disrespectful
    Hillary helped cover up Bill’s RAPE of Juanita Broaddrick (4-25-78)
    Note to Hillary: You can’t bring change if everyone hates you. Sincerely, America
    Bill Clinton tried to SCREW Chelsea’s nanny Becky Brown when Chelsea was young
    Hillary’s $700,000 fundraising fraud in 2000 Senate campaign – New Developments
    The Bhuttos were the Clintons of Pakistan: Corrupt to the Bone and Power Mongers
    Bill Clinton was LYING (as usual) about the crash of TWA Flight 800 (7-17-96).
    Why does Bill want Hillary to Lose?
    Jerry Zeifman worked with Hillary in 1974; she was a liar and power monger.
    Hillary Denies the Child; Politics more important than Danny Williams’ life
    “The Devil’s in that woman” – Miss Emma, the cook at Ark.Gov. Mansion on Hillary
    So why are the Bushes and Clintons “in bed” with each other?
    Andrew Young: Bill Clinton has “gone with more black women” than Obama has.
    Hillary’s TOP aide Bob Nash: up to his ears smuggling Cocaine with CIA in 1980’s
    Check out this hilarious MAD TV take on the Obama/Hillary situation – FUNNY!
    Angry Hillary makes “Hillary” the most poisoned baby name in US history.
    2 good links on Bill Clinton’s LONG history of rape and sexual assault
    The Perverted and Irresponsible Sex Lives of Hillary and Wild Bill (1968 – present)
    Hillary: “IT IS GOD’S LAW TO KILL BABIES.” (1-21-93) to Lurleen Stackhouse!!
    Hillary and Huma Abedin sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G
    Hillary must be defeated in the Demo primary, NOT in the general election
    Is bull dyke Hillary having a lesbian affair with “aide” Huma Abedin?
    Bill Clinton confirms it: Hillary is a lesbian.
    Bullseye, the cat of Kathleen Willey; victim of Clinton black operations – 1997
    Clintons conduct black operations against Bullseye, cat of Kathleen Willey -1997
    Hillary + Webb Hubbell = Chelsea; Hillary + Bill = Nothing.
    Marine Rick Biesada: says 1967 roll in hay with Hillary was worth five bucks
    Hillary linked to “Electile Dysfunction” in crucial Swing Voters
    Bill gets Millions; Frank Giustra gets Billions; Dictator gets Bill’s Blessings.
    Hillary linked to “Electile Dysfunction” in crucial Swing Voters
    Jerry Parks (9-26-93) is the one the Clintons REALLY may have murdered
    Hillary’s Predatory Lending in Whitewater lot sales in 1980’s; loan shark.
    Amy Winehouse: addicted to Drugs. Hillary: addicted to Power.
    Hillary was screwing Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell (Chelsea) and she is a lesbian.
    THE BOTTOM LINE: HILLARY IS IRRESPONSIBLE WITH POWER

    Reply

  7. ... says:

    polls are full of shit.. >>Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama surged to a big lead over Hillary Clinton in California hours before “Super Tuesday” voting began in 24 states, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Tuesday.<<
    calif results – hillary 52% obama 42%
    what i don’t get is how the momentum is always in obamas favour, even when it isn’t… has the media been taken over by one too many robert morrows? presently the media is doing a piss poor job of it.. polls are propaganda tools and nothing else.

    Reply

  8. jim miller says:

    HRC IS ON THE ROPES:
    – Senator Obama won 8 states by over 60% and HRC only one….
    – HRC hand out for money mailer ends with something like “the need has never been greater” sounds desperate…
    – significant number of her donors gave b/c they felt they had to…either for past or future considerations….
    -her 3-day goal is 3 million…some say Obama raised 5 mil since polls closed…do the math
    – her staff is working for free….signs of a loser…voters dont like potential losers….not meant in personal, negative way towards her, just in this contest. Thus discourages old donors…does not motivate new donors…
    -Saturday/Sunday/Tuesday feature contests that lean Obama….at least a split and the money will make for interesting dialogue…feels like mo but 5 out of 6 and she will be falling into the ropes…clock is definitely ticking…
    — great opp for strong canidate contrast…HRC campain 20mill in the whole, yet they are still spending…do we need another deficit lover on day one?…crude but the jist is there…lot’s of different ways to make this fiscal challenge a major contrast….
    —never underestimate the Clinton machine, definitely the most skilled dems of the last 20 years….league of their own…
    —no question HRC has a stronger national profile in experience…not arguing merits of the profile, it defintely is a strength…though potential opening for contrasts…defintiely will be exploited by opposition if she is the nominee…
    —-her post election super tuesday speech was excellent…
    —a greater percentage of her debate skills are more polished thus she plays better than BO, yet it would be foolish to not mention the marked improvement, plus the upside ceiling in this format leans BO….perhaps.
    –How canidates relate to the voters is very, very important in nominating process…as magical as it has been for Obama, awkward has described most of the HRC experience…yet N.H. and last night were passionate….
    bottom line: if establishments of chance still have him at 4 to 1 it might be time to go to cookie jar.

    Reply

  9. Jason says:

    Robert M., if it were only amount the money, Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, and Ross Perot would have been President. Barack has yet to break 50% in any of the polls for more than a day or two, and Gallup has Clinton at 52% and Obama at 39%. I hope he wins, but he has a lot more work to do. He has run an excellent campaign so far, but it’s still anyone’s contest.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Quite delicious indeed”
    Only if you like Jello. But if you crave a more hearty diet, it seems none of you have brought anything substantial to the picnic.

    Reply

  11. Robert M. says:

    Its over, Hillary is toast, baring a major faux pas by Obama, or of course something worse. Its about the MONEY, stupid. He’s on road to raising another $30 and she’s loaning herself money while Mark Penn is still sucking down $500K per month.
    She does not have the money to wage (1) correct & apt media buys, nor (2) to organize the best ground game in Texas and Pennsylvania. Come Guam in May, Obama will have the most delegates by a large margin and will also have been winning states. The nomination will be sucured to Obama by the end of June with Edwards & Gore endorsing.
    There will be no mess at the Dem convention. A Marshall McLuhan “cool” event.
    There will be, however, be a lot of angry people over at the Repub Convention, McCain among them. A Marshall McLuhan “hot” event.
    So, steve, start working your network to get phone conference privileges now with the Obama campaign. He’s the next president.
    Quite delicious indeed. “Revolutionary Change.”

    Reply

  12. Jason says:

    I’m a little disappointed with the tenor of some of the comments here. They are usually more temperate and less ideological.
    That aside, I’m going to go 180 degrees against conventional wisdom and say this is a positive development for her campaign. Please don’t make any assumptions about my political beliefs and hear me out. Part of this is playing devil’s advocate.
    Here are the possible positive consequences.
    1. It makes it easier to lower expectations and portray herself as an underdog, which will skew media coverage in her favor. She is expected to have a rough February and a good March with the upcoming schedule, so this is just the thing she needs to realistically lower expectations for February. Why do you think she released this information the day after Super Tuesday and not a few weeks before?
    2. It may launch a “rally the base” effect that encourages a rush of donations from her supporters in a way that a typical “We need your help” fundraising email can’t.
    3. It gives her the beginning of a story, her greatest weakness in comparison to Obama. One could argue that campaigns are more about having a compelling story than one’s position of the issues. McCain has a story. Obama has a story. Clinton–what’s her story? What’s her rise from adversity? I feel confident that if Clinton ends up winning the nomination, or even makes it out of February in good shape, she will proudly refer to this moment and use it as a selling point to illustrate her resilience and personal commitment.
    Furthermore, the average voter just doesn’t care about this type of thing. Having the finances to donate money to your campaign can be a huge advantage, as Michael Bloomberg, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, and Eliot Spitzer can attest. It doesn’t guarantee success, as John Kerry and Ross Perot can tell you, but it’s certainly not a negative.
    I think the Clintons are getting a 2-for-1 deal here: a boost of cash and a viable argument that she is the underdog, much more valuable than the often ethereal benefits of momentum that Obama may get from this development.
    Look, I support Obama. I say so in most of my comments so people know where I am coming from. But the Clintons are very politically talented, and quite capable of thinking at this level.
    P.S. To somewhat contradict my own point, if this is part of a calculated strategy, I think the Clintons made a significant error in underestimating the potential disappointment’s of some of Obama’s supporters after coming into Super Tuesday with a ton of momentum and leaving with a draw. This story will certainly put wind in their sails for the next month.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But Obama is about something more than Obama — he’s about us, the people who believe in him.”
    Should I chant oooommm now, or finish reading your Kumbaya BS first?
    “The difference is, Obama’s backers are us: the American people. He answers to us, and he’s smart enough to know it”
    Well, if he doesnt think that George Bush is accountable to the people, why in God’s name do you think he is going to hold himself to a higher standard? And dio me a favor, will ya? Try to answer without using the words “vibes”, “aura”, or “feelings”.
    “I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority”- Barack Obama
    Now I ask you, straight out. Do you think President Bush has committed “grave and intentional breeches of the Pressident’s authority”? And if so, why the hell do you want a President that doesn’t think so?

    Reply

  14. susan says:

    Crawl back under your rock, Robert Morrow. You have no credibility.
    From Talking Points Memo:
    So who is Robert Morrow? And how many calls should South Carolinians expect from him?
    Well, he seems to be a kind of amateur smear artist, a self-employed securities trader who works from home in Austin, Texas, and who “describes himself as one of the nation’s premier experts on Hillary and Bill Clinton,” according to a Chicago Tribune piece on “Hillary haters” this summer. He’s somewhat infamous in journalistic circles for his frequent emails. Luckily enough, TPM is on his mailing list, so we got his latest, which had the subject line, “Hillary was screwing BOTH of her law partners Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell (Chelsea) & Hillary is a lesbian (bisexual, really).” From the Tribune:
    “You’ve got to believe there’s going to be a thousand people like me in the general election exposing the Clintons’ track record of violating people and criminality,” said Morrow, who calls the former First Couple “sociopaths and thugs.”

    Reply

  15. Robert Morrow says:

    Obama has the edge in money, momentum and media. Not to mention a favorable primary calander from here on. This is counter-balanced by Hillary’s and Bill’s power lust, a willingness to DO or SAY anything to get ahead, even if it blows up the Democratic party.
    Pretty much dead even; perhaps a slight edge to Obama. Over and out.

    Reply

  16. susan says:

    “May she now do what Republicans once did so well–pander to the base.”
    And, I hope all the Bush Dog Democrats sitting in Congress defying the will of the people who put them there feel a very distinct chill in the air.
    I am talking to you Ken Salazar!

    Reply

  17. JohnH says:

    “This entire process at dead even for quite a while yet.” But Old Mo (momentum) is definitely on Obama’s side. Last month he was well behind nationally. Now he is even. HRC (Her Royal Clinton) was all but anointed by the DLC and Democratic Party establishment. Now she has to win the nomination the old fashioned way–by earning it, not just with Big Money, but with votes.
    How soon will it be before she realizes that Democrats HATE the Iraq Occupation? When will she recant her 2003 vote for it? She cannot hope to win the nomination unless she acknowledges and acts on the will of the Democratic base against the occupation and for the social safety net, which cannot be funded without ending the war.
    Her incumbent, general election strategy is dead. R.I.P. May she now do what Republicans once did so well–pander to the base.

    Reply

  18. al75 says:

    I live in Hillary Clinton’s back yard. Saturday 2/2, there were 10-15 pro-Obama demonstrators in Chappaqua; a much larger demonstration 4 miles away in Bedford (with Ted Sorenson); a much, much larger one 7 miles away in White Plains.
    All of this within 7 miles of Hillary’s house.
    How many pro-Hillary demonstrators have I seen: zero, all winter.
    I know I’m just one guy, but this means something. I know many HRC voters, but none who have canvassed, or made calls, or given money (count me down for all three for BO).
    This HRC goes the way of Mitt loan story confirms my own experience: plenty of people will vote for HRC, but the people who CARE about the process, who believe that change is possible, who are willing to actually do something to bring it about — we’re for Obama.
    No, I don’t hate HRC. But Obama is about something more than Obama — he’s about us, the people who believe in him. That’s why we give him our pissy little $100 bills – and when 300,000 people do that in a month, you actually have some cash.
    HRC is dependent on the high-rollers, the big lobbyists, a few very wealthy folks for money. And now on herself.
    That’s why Obama is different: when he has to make a decision about energy policy or Iraq, or the deficit, he’s going to have to answer to the people who bankrolled his campaign.
    The difference is, Obama’s backers are us: the American people. He answers to us, and he’s smart enough to know it.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *