Were the Clinton campaign’s financial troubles a ruse?

February 8, 2008

When Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign disclosed on Wednesday afternoon that the candidate had given herself a $5 million loan, it came as a huge surprise to the political world, which had assumed Clinton’s coffers were full. When the campaign added that some senior aides would go without pay, it reinforced the notion that, in the wake of a split decision on Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign was experiencing financial troubles at a very bad time.

That was Wednesday afternoon. Within about 24 hours, however, a new narrative had emerged: with its back against the wall, the campaign is back on track thanks to contributors who stepped up when Clinton needed them most. What looked like a potential disaster became an opportunity, and the campaign ended up raising more than $4 million yesterday.

The good fortune is leading some to question whether the desperate financial straits were legitimate in the first place. TNR’s Jason Zengerle suggested Clinton’s $5 million loan may have been a “ruse,” amounting to “her Oral Roberts moment.” (In 1987, the televangelist told his followers God would “call him home” unless they contributed $5 million. His followers duly chipped in, and the scheme worked.)

ABC News, under a headline that read, “Cash-strapped Clinton campaign – stunt?” had an item along the same lines.

The campaign announced today that it raised more than four million dollars online in the 24 hours after polls closed on Tuesday — the biggest single haul in one day ever for the campaign. […]

That outpouring is the reason that a handful of senior staff who had offered to go without pay on Wednesday have been told today that they will not need to skip paychecks.

One longtime Democratic consultant not affiliated with any campaign wondered if perhaps the whole thing wasn’t a big stunt to garner media attention and look like an “underdog.”

“I’d take this revelation as a sign that they planned this whole thing,” the consultant said.

Anything’s possible, I suppose, but I seriously doubt this was an orchestrated ploy.

First, even the ABC News report that speculates about this as a possible ruse includes no evidence of subterfuge at all.

Second, the senator really did loan her campaign $5 million. And her top aides really were prepared to work without compensation for a little while. These weren’t just rumors; they were actual occurrences.

Third, there was simply no reason for the campaign to take this kind of risk. Nothing feeds into the “campaign on the ropes” narrative like financial trouble. It strikes me as implausible that Clinton would give herself a loan and allow her supporters to start to panic, all in the hopes that it might work to her advantage.

And fourth, if it was a ruse, it partially backfired — the Obama campaign used the Clinton loan to rally its own supporters, and the Illinois senator raised over $7 million the day after Super Tuesday.

I know it’s kind of fun to think every political event is orchestrated by clever tacticians who have coordinated strategies at play, but sometimes, things are what they appear. The most plausible scenario is that the Clinton campaign was having serious money trouble, and her donors responded.

It’s not the most entertaining explanation, but it’s probably the right one.

Jeez!

  • Anything’s possible, I suppose, but I seriously doubt this was an orchestrated ploy.

    As do I, but that won’t stop Hillary fans from proclaiming that such was the case. After all, Hillary is such a strategic genius and the only person capable of standing up to the Republicans, so what other possible explanation could there be?!?

    Sorry for the excessive snark.

  • It’s amazing how clever everybody seems to think Hillary is.

    Yet they can’t somehow imagine her being President?

    I don’t think the ‘ruse’ would be a failure if Obama makes more. The relative funding is less important than the Clinton campaign simply making sure they have the funds to make their case in important upcoming primaries.

  • The title you selected tells the story. If there is no evidence of a ruse, why describe it that way?

  • According to reports I heard, Clinton aides specifically agreed to work without pay for 30 days. Then they backed off that yesterday. If this were a ruse, it sure was sloppy. I can’t imagine that the Clinton campaign is particularly happy about reports that Hillary had to give up the Lear jet and fly with the little people (reporters). I would dismiss ABC as potstirrers in this case.

  • Campaign Finance Reform. – Sounds good on paper, but it gives a tremendous advantage to celebrities, and gives way too much power to people like Chris Matthews, and by extension, to the people who hire him.

  • A bit off topic, but I have been wondering, come general election time will the hard core Obama or Clinton supporters get behind the candidate they didn’t support? I have had this discussion with someone who thinks that the Obama supporters in particular, will just stay home (like some of the obsessive McCain haters) but I don’t know. I have a feeling that many more of his supporters are passionate about him and new to the politics thing. Obviously there are many that would go ahead and vote Clinton, but are there a significant number that would for him only and stay at home if he wasn’t running?

  • I should specify, I assumed, by saying Campaign Finance Reform, Ohoian was referring to public financing. If not, well it was just a thought about the latter.

  • ET:

    I think it has a lot to do with whether the Clintons start playing dirty again.

    When they were LYING about Obama’s statements and positions, my anger towards them got to the point where I was considering staying home on November. But apparently the Clintons got the message and backed off. Since the last debate their play has been clean and I’m feeling better about them.

  • It was far too risky to have been intentional, even if it did end up drawing new contributions.

    What the media is missing is that having financial difficulties and being out of money are not necessarily the same thing. Clinton may have had a short-term cash flow crunch because of pledged contributions that hadn’t come in yet (the loan to self would be a nice bridge there), because of money that cant be spent until the general, because they made a sudden change of plans that put them over budget for the next few weeks, or she may have seen donations slow dramatically after Obama’s January numbers were announced — any of which would give the campaign short term financial concerns even if they had money coming in and money in the bank.

    The people that jump to wild conclusions appear to have never worked on a major campaign.

  • Can we lose the Drudge headlines, please? This kind of thing is not adding anything to the discussion.

    A more appropriate topic might be to look at positive v. negative media coverage with respect to both campaigns, David Shuster wondering if Chelsea Clinton’s getting involved in the campaign amounted to he mother “pimping her out,” etc. Or Andrea Mitchell reporting on the Clinton fundraising by saying, “the Clinton campaign claimed that it had raised almost 4 million dollars” – use of the word “claimed” as opposed to the word “said” is an implication that perhaps we shouldn’t believe the numbers.

    It’s getting out of hand, to the point where I think every person reporting on the election needs to disclose which candidate he or she is supporting, or who has given money to whom and how much – on both sides of the aisle.

  • Answer to ET #8 – I am an Obama supporter. However, if Hillary were to win the nomination I would vote for her because I don’t want McCain picking the next Supreme Court judges.

  • ET:

    Dean also had a lot of that “movement” type support, and at various times in the campaign many Deaniacs swore they could never support Kerry. In the end my sense is that most of them did, although some of those who were political “virgins” may have just gone home unnoticed.

    I suspect that given the choice between Clinton and a Republican, particularly if McCain tacks to the right between now and then, Obama’s supporters will back Clinton – much of the healing comes when the 2nd place candidate personally throws their support to the winner (usually at convention). If the candidate himself can “forgive,” why would supporters be unable to do so?

    The dynamic repeats fairly frequently, there is no real reason to suspect the downside phenomenon would be uniquely worse this year.

  • There are times when I, long-time Democrat voter, have thought I couldn’t vote for Clinton. Other times when I felt like I could hold my nose and do it (I used to like her, btw; these are feelings she generated herself during this primary with her own actions). But there’s no way I’ll ever donate my time nor money to her campaign. I don’t want to be a part of it. Period.

    Oh, and if she “wins” the nomination in some underhanded way, like losing the popular vote and pledged delegate totals but getting more superdelegates through institutional advantages, or seating Michigan, or whatever, then no, I will not vote for her, and I will re-register as an Independent, too.

  • Why do we always have these “long time Democrat whatevers” offering us this savy info? That makes me wonder more than the money issue. I guess that’s whay this guy is “unaffilated”.

  • I hope all of those of you are right and come general election time people do support the Democratic candidate, but this is the Democrats election to loose. But of course Democrats have shot themselves in the foot before……

    I guess some of this will be determined on how conciliatory the looser is and how active or inactive he/she and their supporters are.

  • This goes to show that the left media can act just like the MSM and right media. If there was no evidence then why did the question even rise to printability? Because some consultant had a “revelation”? This is a low blow and the kind of “journalism” I despise.

  • Were the Clinton campaign’s financial troubles a ruse perpetrated by the Obama campaign so they could raise more money by using the ruse to motivate their donors?

  • Either Hil had money woes and her campaign is now LYING that it didn’t, or it never had the money woes and it LIED before when it implied poverty wasthe rationale for the harsh measures it undertook.

    One final possibility. Their staff may be so wretchedly incompetent that the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing and it THOUGHT it was bankrupt when it was flush with cash.

    Lying, or bumbling and clueless.

    Take your pick.

    NONE of it is flattering.

    The Clinton campaign sees no reason to explain this schizoid behavior.
    I don’t need a reason at the moment. I’m okay, thanks.
    If she gets elected, though, and financial matters are so poorly documented or understood, will this serve us well?

    This should scare the spit out of people.

  • I am at the point where when the Clintons’s announce something, I find myself wondering whether it is true or not. Now with King George it is easier as I know everything he says is a lie or complete fabrication. So my best hope is that if Hillary wins, she will follow Georgie Boys playbook and then for the next four years I wont have to concern myself with worrying about the truth anymore.

    Of course, I could vote for Obama.

  • I echo Tamalak’s sentiments, but would add that the only scenario in which I could see myself not voting for Clinton if she is the eventual nominee is if she succeeds on getting the Michigan and Florida delegates seated and wins on that basis. Even a superdelegate victory wouldn’t upset me much, since that’s built into the system from the beginning, but all of the candidates, including Clinton, agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count, and her rumblings to the contrary after doing well in those states (and being the only top-tier candidate not to remove her name from the Michigan ballot) really upset me. I should hope that the DNC would resist any pressure that the Clinton campaign may exert to seat those delegates if it appears by the time of the convention that they would change the outcome, but if Clinton did win by such a dirty trick, I simply could not in good conscience vote for her, even though I certainly share Sheridan’s concern about letting McCain pick the next Supreme Court justices (and a large number of federal court of appeals judges, which are nearly as influential).

  • I wouldn’t call the move “clever.” I would call it an example of the desperation that now informs the campaign that planneda coronation as Candidate Inevitabilia by today when they originally set things up. Couple this with the cries for debates and a look at the kind of primaries that are coming the rest of the month, and you see a candidate and a campaign who are very afraid.

    They’re even lower, slower, and more out of ideas than I was giving them credit for.

  • Since there’s a little confusion about using Clinton to refer to Hillary, I’ll just call Bill Clinton42 and Hillary Clinton44.

    Dem Clinton bashers have let the wingnuts get into their heads with 16 years of lying.

  • You know, I’m used to the endless Clinton Conspiracy theories coming from Drudge and Rush, but it sure is surprising to see them coming from “progressives.”

    How long until we see the Obama-maniacs start demanding we exhume Vince Foster?

  • I agree with Zeitgeist on #11:

    There are many reasons why a campaign can have a short term money crunch. This doesn’t necessarily show weakness on the part of the Clinton campaign.

    But the relative strength of the money raising on the Obama side does suggest strength on his side.

  • I hope all of those of you are right and come general election time people do support the Democratic candidate, but this is the Democrats election to loose. -ET

    I think the Republicans will coalesce around McCain the same way the Democrats will around whomever the candidate is. Which is why I don’t think November will be a cake walk. We’re still fighting a broken system and people who aren’t afraid to cheat.

  • Just another example of Clinton dishonesty. We should be used to this by now.

    Why would anybody want a return to the corruption that hovers over the Clinton name?

  • I know its easy to portray Hillary as a conniving lowdown evil woman looking to get ahead but if you look at her history even in her private life she has fought her whole life for children. Put her husbands ambitions ahead of her own. Even during her toughest times she tried to do what was right for the country. During impeachment she soldiered on fighting for the things she beleived in. Hillary is a champion for children, the elderly and the poor whether they be white, black or green.

    I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for her in the primary season but unless we as a group keep our combined eye on the prize the republicans will destroy our chances of taking back our country. Everyone gets caught up in the hype of something new and different as I did when Barack gave his inspirational speech at the 2004 convention I said then that in about 10 years from now that man will be our first black president and I still beleive that. Some need to think we live in a dangerous time in our history. I hate this war as much as the next person but in reality and everyone knows this we cannot just withdraw 150,000 in a matter of weeks because we would suffer so many casualties withdrawing at that pace our own military leaders would revolt. What needs to happen is to get others involved that have something at stake in this fight. For me on the job training is not sufficient for me voting for Barack therefore I voted for Hillary because she has past military leaders to rely on for advice if needed. I learned along time ago that you don’t go into a gun fight with a knife. I personally would like to see a Hillary/Barack ticket but I don’t think that will happen. Barack would then be next inline for the presidency making for the first time in history that the democratic party would have the possibility of holding the highest office in the land for at least 16 years. Now to make one more point we all love our patry and lest us not tear it apart for the sake of bitterness. Remember the retugs are just waiting for this united front against them to implode and that is up to all of us to cut the vitriol against one another. LET”S GO DEMS all of us.

  • having already provided at #11 the answer to #21, I think i am getting toowearyfortoowearyforoutrage.

  • ABC New’s attempt at FAIR & BALANCED; Punch Obama with “And Obama Wept”, then slap Hillary with provocative[!] questions…I’m outraged!

    Call me a dreamer, but there ought to be [an electronic?] forum where reasonable people can consider thoughtful analysis of American politics,
    and then add their own comments…If only the technology existed.

    I should write D.A.R.P.A.

  • Let’s just be honest – there is nothing that comes out of the Clinton campaign that some of you will not automatically question – and apparently the media is totally on board with that approach where she is concerned.

    Please, don’t ever try to cast an objective eye on what you are seeing and hearing – the media would be so upset to know that you might not be buying what they’re selling so hard. Don’t cast your mind back to the run-up to the war, for example, and dredge up the memories of how the media acted as chief apologist and stenographer for everything Bush and the Gang said, and shut out those who wanted to ask questions. Try not to think about how the media treated Gore and Kerry, and whatever you do, don’t even entertain the idea that if Obama is the nominee that he would get the same treatment HRC is getting now. Perish the thought.

    And try not to think about the fact that much of the media speculation was raised by the Obama campaign in what is becoming a familiar Obama tactic – muse out loud about whatever it is you want the media to hit HRC on, but when pressed for an actual opinion, always leave it “for the voters to decide.”

    Do any of you even understand the mechanics of campaign financing? Do you understand cash flow? Ever taken a cash advance knowing you would have the money shortly but had an immediate need you couldn’t cover?

    Hillary isn’t stupid – she knew, and some of the comments here are a perfect example – that once it got out that she had loaned money to the campaign, it would engender all kinds of speculation about whether she could keep going. If she had divulged the loan before Super Tuesday, I know without a doubt that you would be asking if someone with such poor strategic sense could be trusted to be president, and asking if her decision to announce the loan affected her performance in the Super Tuesday contests.

    Get a grip. HRC has only really begun to tap into her grassroots supporters, and don’t be surprised if the cash keeps rolling in.

  • It is going to be tough to convince a lot of people to go back to the Clinton ways.

    If Hillary wins our nomination, we will have a 100 yr war in Iraq. There is no way that Hillary will draw upon the moderate voters enough to put her ahead of McCain.

    If Obama wins our nomination, we will win the presidency in a cakewalk.

    The hard core Hillary supporters who cannot let go of the past and fail to embrace change are really hurting the Democratic Party.

  • this ranks up there with the NH tears, Hillary cries and the middle aged women come out to support her. Ruse or not, she’s playing up the sympathy for all its worth.

  • Anything’s possible, I suppose, but I seriously doubt this was an orchestrated ploy.
    Thats like saying Bush didnt lie .
    Some people )Bush -Cheney- Billary and I could name manymore )especially in politics will do and say anything to acheive their ends
    Well I believe it was , nothing is beyond Billary.
    They mean to win by any means necessary and\s stated this makes her look like the underdog.
    You know they want to lower expectations .
    Hillary is slick and I dont trust her and after someof the things Bill said I no longer trust him either.
    NO matter– I say yes to Obama and yes to YES WE CAN.
    or we should!

  • She’s not stupid. The money problem looks like shit and they know it, nothing smells like doom more than previously paid volunteers and personal loans.

    It’s like if she showed up at the ER with a bullet hole in her foot. Sure, she could have done it intentionally, but is she that stupid? I don’t think so.

  • Anything’s possible, I suppose, but I seriously doubt this was an orchestrated ploy.
    Thats like saying Bush didnt lie .
    Some people )Bush -Cheney- Billary and I could name manymore )especially in politics will do and say anything to acheive their ends
    Well I believe it was , nothing is beyond Billary.
    They mean to win by any means necessary and as stated this makes her look like the underdog.
    You know they want to lower expectations .
    Hillary is slick and I dont trust her and after someof the things Bill said I no longer trust him either.
    NO matter– I say yes to Obama and yes to YES WE CAN.
    or we should!

  • serialcommentersareboring said:

    this ranks up there with the NH tears, Hillary cries and the middle aged women come out to support her. Ruse or not, she’s playing up the sympathy for all its worth.

    There were no tears in New Hampshire. No evidence of a ruse. Name one instance of her “playing up the sympathy” over the campaign funds? You need to exorcise the wingnut voices from your head.

  • Hillary is not to be trusted .
    And if she wins you’ll see she told you anything just to get elected.
    Troops home in 60 days –yea right.
    Watch!!!!!!

  • jacqueline said:

    Hillary is not to be trusted .
    And if she wins you’ll see she told you anything just to get elected.
    Troops home in 60 days –yea right.
    Watch!!!!!!

    Evidence? Or did you just have a revelation?

  • there was the break down in NH – getting choked up, voice cracking (i saw the video). My sympathy comment wasnt exclusive to this latest money ploy, remember the cries of the “guys” piling on in past debates… pitty poor hillary, and they do

  • Dale, are you trying to claim that there were no tears in NH?

    Have you been living under a rock?

    “Bwwwaaaaa, It’s so hard, bwaaaaaa, I just want to be president, bwaaaaa waaaa waaaaa….”

    You don’t remember that?

  • Todd 43, I remember it accurately. There was the slightest welling up when she was answering a sympathetic question from a group of women around a table.

    Exorcise those wingnut voices, Todd. They’re messing with your memory.

  • I think Zeitgeist has convinced me that Clinton is going to win. The late breakers always seem to break her way, and often enough it’s enough to win. She may not have an overwhelming delegate advantage in August (damn Dean for putting our Convention so damn far back) but she’s going to have more primary votes.

    Seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and break the rules, or obey the rules and let the Super Delegates vote where they want. Either way I see it going to Hillary.

    Or be two-faced and insist that the delegations can’t be seated but the Super Delegates don’t have the freedom of choice.

  • The Clinton Machine will not stop with the disinformation and will use any trick, evven take a page form the Bush Campaign. Whether it be planting someone in the audience, crying for effect, lying and other deceitful practices, smearing a colleague. Doesn’t this sound like Republican political tricks? Sure the Democrats do tricks . H&BC are very clever at playing the media. This just shows what it will be like if the Clintons are in the White House.again. Do we need another 8 years of the same old lies, deceits , smoke and mirrors.?
    NO! We , the country of America needs to change the political maelstrom and we need to look to the future not live out the past. The past was destroyed by the Republican party and the current administration’s tsunami of corruption.The Clintons are tainted by the same Republican pus of corruption.

    I agree that B&H Clinton are desparate to win and will demand to have a super delegate count rather than let the American people speak for whom Americans really want for President. B&C are a sham!.

  • Lance, I’m glad I convinced you, because I haven’t convinced myself! I think Obama has an ever-so-slight inside track right now.

  • Political corollary to Ockham’s razor: don’t look for conspiracy when stupidity (or ineptness or poor timing or bad luck) will do.

    Todd, why is everything you say expressed in such shrill extremes? Have you considered calming down, perhaps through modern pharmacology?

  • and will demand to have a super delegate count

    Aha! Proof that Obama supporters don’t believe in abiding by the rules! He’s criminal scum! How could I ever vote for him????!!!!!?????!!!!!

    (so far this morning, reading CBR comments has cost me about 30 IQ points, and each new Todd, Jacqueline, or “. . . isboring” post costs me another 3-5. Aaaiiiieeeghhhhh!)

  • Obama is a good candidate. Most of the pro-Obama folks on this site are sensible, but all the vicious ones are for him.

  • VOTE HRC: I say we elect Hillary, just so we can impeach another Clinton – and teach those [expletive deleted] liberals a lesson.

  • zeit, you obviously love this, else you wouldnt feed the beast. obviously you see your opinion as very insightful, and I dont disagree with a lot of what you have said in the past, but i do think that an overabundance of self-righteous Hill-backers have made the comments portion of CBR very annoying for the hope-filled, inspired Obama folks. i for one will be glad when primary season is over (however it ends up), and evryone can get back to beating up people like blogingRfun…

  • No, . . . isboring, I “love” the discussions we had here before everything was about the two candidates all the time. I have even greatly enjoyed the discussions about the two candidates I have had with doubtful and dajafi, and often even Doctor Biobrain when we are both on our better behavior and some others who are very thoughtful in their comments. I loved reading the very sage comments of Anne and Ed Stephen long long before this race started, and when everyone else seemed to as well before showingthey were just fair-weather friends who would stick the knife in Anne and Ed as soon as it was about the candidates.

    That was the CBR I loved.

    These last few days have shown how easy it is for a few assholes to screw up a good community. That I dont love at all. I find trite, hyperactive, substance-less screaming, well. . . boring.

  • ET, with regard to who I’ll vote for in Nov., I agree with Tamalak. After S.C. and the racebaiting and lying about Obama’s past statements and record, I was seeing red and relishing the idea of writing in “Jesse Jackson” just for spite. But the Clintons seemed to have cleaned things up a bit and my blood pressure has returned to normal levels – for now. Everything depends on how Hillary wins the nomination, should she do so. If there’s more underhanded tactics, or if she wins through backroom deals or the Fla. and Mich. delegates, I could well be back to voting for Jesse. If it’s a clean win, she’ll have my full support and a campaign contribution to boot.

  • U GUISE NEED 2 STOP TALKIN BOUT DIS STUFF AND START ROOTIN FOR BOF DE DEMMOCRATS BECAUS DE REPUBICANS IS MEANS AND DURTY. AND CAN I HAS CHEEZBURGER? LOL

  • Er, mountain out of a molehill much?

    Whatever Hilary’s financial situation was before, now that she’s loaned herself that cash and gotten more from her supporters she obviously seems to be fine now.

    I have to agree with zeitgeist and say that this isn’t really indicative of anything at all, beyond the ability of people to start a fire when they think they see smoke.

  • MY GREEN AGENDA: I’ve donated to the Obama campaign, and may do so again. But if Barack and HRC can’t work together, I may support McCain because the Democrats need ALL their best players on the field if they are going to compete effectively (for the benefit of the people and the planet) with the powerful influence of the often times voracious corporate lobbyist.

  • “Troops home in 60 days –yea right.”

    If you go back and check her exact words, she said she’d begin planning to bring the troops home in 60 days of taking office – not that she’s actually bring them home in that time.

    Just how long does it take to begin planning something? To me, this was the lamest campaign promise I’ve ever heard.

    Both Hillary and Bill are ultra-pragmatic. They’ll do whatever it takes to gain and maintain political power. That being said, they use the power for the benefit of the country (as they see it). I don’t like Hillary at all, but given the choice between her and McCain, I’ll vote for her. McCain’s view of reality is too far warped in favor of the military, corporations, and religious extremism for him to do the world any good.

  • Anything is possible with a Clinton. That is precisely why I could not vote for her under any circumstances I can imagine. I would not trust her.

  • I don’t understand. Are you people honestly saying you would rather have John McCain than Hillary Clinton? John “Let’s stay in Iraq for 100 years!” McCain, John “Women and gays don’t deserve rights” McCain, John “Healthcare is for losers!” McCain, John “Friendly with Dubya” McCain?

    I’m not fond of her either, but there comes a time when we need to put petty differences aside and support our party. If we can’t do this, the Republicans will win. And everybody who stayed home rather than vote for Hillary will be partially to blame for it. Harsh, but true.

  • Every Clinton word is a RUSE and a lie. Contrived everything. The most loathed female in North America. Eight years of sleazy money grubbing with Slick Willie and the promise of 4 more?? Even the Dems are wise to Clinton scum. Hillary is toast. She was DOA when she tossed her hat in the ring. Now an airball nobody creams HRC. Surprised?

    • Comments are closed.