07 February 2008

Dirty Money

In a simultaneous admission of weakness and betrayal of principle, Hillary Clinton pumped five million dollars of her own money into her campaign yesterday.

Blithely calling her massive self-donation a "loan," Hillary said that she wrote herself a check because "I believe in this campaign and I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment."

The subtext here is undeniable. She believes in her own campaign, but thinks the belief of others hasn't been sufficient. She considers her campaign a wise investment, but one risky enough that she needs to shore it up with her own cash.

But most outrageous is the message Hillary is sending: I can buy my way to the White House. If I'm not getting enough support from the people, I'll just make up the difference with my own bank account. I'll get to the Oval Office with or without you - I've got the cash to do it. The Presidency has a pricetag, and I can afford the down payment.

Barack Obama's campaign also got a financial boost the day after Super Tuesday. While Hillary cut herself a check for five million dollars, Barak raised six million. It came not from his bank account, but from hundreds of thousands of his supporters.

The messages of each campaign are clear. Hillary thinks that the White House can be bought. Barack is demonstrating that it must be earned through the support of the people.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Not to nitpick, but the $5M loan was actually made in January; it was just disclosed this week. By mid-week Obama had raised $7M to counter that loan, but now the Clinton campaign is claiming to have raised $10M since Super Tuesday. I am sure Obama has raised a healthy amount this week but apparently not more than that, since his campaign did not counter with a specific figure. Overall though, they claim to have raised more this month and they raised a shit-ton of money this year already (over $30M in January alone).

(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/09/clinton-raises-10-million-since-super-tuesday/)

Although the Obama campaign has denied accepting "bundled" contributions from lobbyists, I am sure bundling by special interests is inevitable to some extent. Still, I'd rather a candidate that at least makes an effort to limit shady contributions (or, makes an effort to appear to limit them, anyway) than one that doesn't. Three more states for Obama last night. It seems the more people learn about him the more they are "Fired up and ready to go!" I don't want to presume he will be the candidate, though; we all know how that turned out for the Patriots... (super frowny faces) :( :( :(

Z said...

Oh, by all means, nitpick! I was not aware of these facts and figures.

I am sure as well that Obama, being a politician, has shady dealings and less-than-admirable contributions of his own. It's just the open smarminess of Hillary's self-donation - excuse me, "loan" - that bothers me... and the fact that her contribution to her own campaign is more than Obama's personal net worth. Or so I've read.

Unknown said...

Agreed!