Hillary raids the war chest in drive for landslide

[T_i_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/27/whills27a.xml

Hillary Clinton is pouring money into a re-election campaign many consider a foregone conclusion, prompting speculation she is gunning for a scene-setting landslide ahead of a 2008 bid for the White House.

The New York senator spent nearly $7million (£3.7million) from her senate campaign account between Aug 24 and the end of September, one of the largest amounts ever spent by a senate candidate in such a short time, despite the fact she is trouncing her opponent in the polls ahead of the vote on Nov 7.

Commentators say she could be trying to emulate the emphatic gubernatorial victory secured by George W Bush in 1998, ahead of his bid for the presidency, when Mr Bush spent four times as much as his opponent.

Such a strategy could help win over critics who believe Mrs Clinton lacks the broad appeal needed to defeat a moderate Republican in 2008 and serve as a dress rehearsal for a national campaign. "It's practically a coronation," said Jonathan Krasno, professor of political science at Binghamton University.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

1. Money better spend on helping other crucial Democratic campaigns.

Another reason I will not support her in 2008 it is not all about Hillary but most importantly, she can't win and with that amount of funding would only be a divisive factor in the Democratic Party's effort win the presidency.

[AZBlue]

6. She did - she donated $9 million to other campaigns.

More than she's spent on her own. Out of her own campaign account.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/hillary_clinton_2.html


(edited to add link, as I'm sure it will be requested)

[AlGore-08.com]

9. That's better than nothing, but... it doesn't address the larger issue

Which is that HRC and John Kerry and plenty of other office holders aggressively fund raise for re-election campaigns which end up being uncontested or barely contested, and end up with these huge reserves of cash which they are then able to use on future campaigns.

Is everybody okay with that?

(For everybody who's okay with that: think about somebody like John McCain being able to build up a war chest twice the size of Hillary Clinton's and use it to bury her in 2008. Are you still okay with that?)

While you can certainly make the case that an office holder doesn't know for sure who they will be running against until the opposition primary is over, and you can also make the case that the general election may have surprises that can turn a projected landslide victory into a crushing defeat... once the election is over, should the candidate be allowed to keep any extra funds? Should they be able to start their next campaign millions of dollars ahead of any potential rivals - - making the next race even more expensive, and making it even more difficult to run a small donor based campaign?

What about the donors? What if they gave to candidate A because they thought they were the best choice in that race - - but don't feel that way when candidate A runs against somebody different. Is it fair to the donors that their money is now funding somebody they no longer support?

And for the millions given by candidates to the DCCC or the DSCC or the DNC or other PACs... it's a way to increase their prestige in the party. Our party leaders end up being the ones who can raise the most cash - - and if the folks with the best policy ideas or strategic ideas can't compete in the fund raising wars, they get dumped on the wayside.

All of this is just more reason why we need publicly financed campaigns, free air time and enforceable campaign spending limits.

[karynnj]

10. John Kerry is NOT fund raising for himself

Why is he included in this - he is raising money ONLY for others this year. That has been shown in many threads. The money is being raised directly for other candidates with 100% of the money going to the indicated candidates - and the costs go to Kerry's PAC.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Each decides for them self. Clark chose not to stockpile any Cash

Even though Wes Clark is not a current office holder, who could theoretically be raising money for a future campaign, there are plenty of ways around that and Clark chose not to take any of them. He could have set up an early Exploratory Committee for a possible 2008 run and raised money that way, but he didn't. He could have aggressively raised money for his current Political Action Committee, WesPAC. Although those funds would technically not have been available for a future campaign, he could have used that cash to hire a much larger staff that could unofficially do groundwork for a 2008 Presidential run, under the guise of general PAC activities. That would have been the easy route to take, and Clark ruled that out completely also. You can count his paid staff on two hands and have fingers left over. Clark could have paid himself a salary through WesPAC also, rather than support himself through activities outside of it. He didn't. Clark did the minimal fund raising needed to keep WesPAC afloat while he constantly urged small and large donors alike to give directly to 2006 Democratic Candidates. He is sitting on nothing.

Those of us who do hope that he runs in 2008 have both been frustrated and proud of Clark's focus, with more emphasis on the latter. Regarding possible 2008 Presidential candidates, time and time again I read political pundits writing Clark off for 2008, openly saying that they do so in good part because Clark doesn't have the money in the Bank that they want to see sitting there. Political insiders rate candidate's 2008 chances by how big a wad they can stash away now for 2008. That is one reason why Mark Warner was considered a serious candidate from day one, and why Evan Bayh gets serious respect now inside the beltway also.

I don't know why some Democratic incumbents who are running in safe districts, who do not plan to run in 2008 for President, might be hoarding big cash now. But sometimes I am reminded of some Major League Athletes who want their contracts reopened and renegotiated from 6 million a year to 8 million a year when they see someone with lesser stats sign a contract bigger than their own. The cliche is that it's not about the money, it's about respect. Maybe our politics are so corrupt that respect in some important circles is directly tied to how big your bank account is.

[karynnj]

12. Clark seems to have been doing a fantastic job

especially for the veteran candidates. I agree that it is frustrating that money and fund raising is so important. I really wish they would pass some real campaign fund reform - which McCain/Feingold isn't.

I'm not sure how good the insiders view of who has a chance is. Warner, as you noted, was considered a superstar as soon as he mentioned he was interested - but he has now accepted that he didn't have support. In 2003, Kerry had so little money that he borrowed $6 million against his house to keep his camplain from going bankrupt. So, there's an example where money wasn't enough and another where lack of a warchest, didn't stop the man who won the nomination. (The $6 million was still way below the $40 million Dean raised at that point.)

[AJH032]

14. I'm okay with it

The Republicans do it, only with larger amounts. If our Dems don't do it, they would have no chance in a Presidential election.

[oasis]

13. Some DUers say she should've given 3 times as much, mortgaged her home,

and sold her automobile. :eyes:

[Stephanie]

2. The primary was September 12th.

She spent a lot of that dough against us. She spent a bundle against our anti-war candidate Tasini, who had $145,000 versus her $48,000,000. She spent $25,000,000 against us, as reported in the pre-primary filing, PLUS whatever percentage of that $7,000,000 that was spent in the last few weeks before the 12th, against our "little-known" opponent, as he was universally labeled. And yet Tasini got 17% of the vote - 125,000 votes. That was accomplished by a motivated anti-war grassroots and HRC took note, no doubt.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=NYS1&cycle=2006

[Sensitivity]

3. Sad that Hill couldn't send a few $mil into Webb and Ford campaigns

[wisteria]

4. What a wast of good money that could help other Dem's in tight races.

This is actually pathetic. I hope it isn't correct. She is positioned to win in a landslide anyway. Getting more NY votes doesn't mean she can get more of America's vote. Actually her race is such a forgone conclusion that she could just sat back with her feet up and do absolutely nothing and still win big.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Yeah but that Kerry's a tightass, huh?

:eyes:

[AZBlue]

7. See post #6

[AZBlue]

8. See post #6