There had been complaints for weeks coming from Clinton’s big donors because Obama hadn’t mentioned how he would help, and because he’d started fundraising for the next Congressional elections and for the Senate race, which are, maybe, more important to the party than Clinton’s debt? Apparently, they felt slighted or something.

On the one hand, necessary for party unity blah blah blah, he needs her donors too etc. On the other hand, she’s the one who chose to run past the point where it was financially tenable, in part because she knew she could count on that kind of arrangement, which…I don’t even know what to say. I think it’s telling that Obama asked help for his big donors, “as much as they could”, but certainly not to his small Internet donors. That would be hard to swallow, given the fortune the Clintons own.

I ALSO find it telling that for the last weeks, whenever the issue was mentioned, people talked about helping her retiring ALL her debt. I think the lack of enthusiasm from the Obama camp and the fact that it would be really difficult to ask people to give money to a multimillionnaire so she could get her personal loans back is what led her to finally indicate that she only expected her donors to get paid. People like Mark Penn, soit dit en passant.

::jaw drops:: That’s like losing out to your business competition and asking them to please pay off your business loans or it will look bad for the industry.

Actually, these days, I guess that’s possible.

Samantha Vimes: That’s like losing out to your business competition and asking them to please pay off your business loans or it will look bad for the industry.

Except in the way that it’s totally not.

Hillary Clinton never was Barack Obama’s “business competition”: that was and remains John McCain.

::jaw drops:: That’s like losing out to your business competition and asking them to please pay off your business loans or it will look bad for the industry.

Well, it’s kind of like that, except in this case the business competitors have become colleagues.

Obama’s not hurting for resources right now (the Daily Show’s take on this was hilarious—hummercopter!), and this might be a good, concrete way for him to show Clinton supporters some good will. It’s not going to heal all the wounds from the primaries, but it might go a long way toward showing that he’s ready to actually reciprocate a bit on the “unity” thing.

There seems to be some confusion over this. The Obama campaign can’t donate more than $2,300 to the Clinton campaign for the primary election. All Obama can do is ask his big donors to help her settle her debt. It’s completely voluntary.

Also, Obama is not that great on resources right now. He brought in $1 million more than McCain in May, and the RNC has a huge cash advantage over the DNC. McCain also doesn’t have to fundraise since he will receive $82 million from public financing. We are in the hole for the general election. The narrative that he is flush with cash just discourages small donors from contributing.

If Obama was in a hole he would have taken public funding.  He would allow 527s to exist.  And he’s doing this so Clinton can get some of her huge general election money transferred over to him.

Rob, Hillary can only donate $2,300 to the Obama campaign. There are no million dollar campaign transfers. He is in hole. From <a> <href=“http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/24/141521/058/807/541256”>Kos</a>, yesterday:

The RNC and McCain combined currently hold a $38 million advantage. Throw in the $85 million in public financing Obama will refuse, and that gap is now $123 million.

He is currently in the hole. He didn’t take public financing because he believes he can dig his way out of it, but saying he already has or it’s inevitable is counter productive. Also, he may have dissolved 527’s, but MoveOn’s just became a PAC. From a fundraising standpoint, it’s a distinction without much difference.

Psh, I don’t have a problem with Obama making the gesture, as it will help soothe feelings, BUT this is another reason I’d make a bad politician, as my own reaction is, “You spent more than you had? TOO BAD.”

I mean, these are the people who are supposed to level off government spending? Ugh.

Kos is sure doing some interesting math in that post—you’d almost think he wants to get people to donate to the DNC or something.

The problem is the gap between the RNC and the DNC, not the gap between McCain and Obama.  Obama has raised more primary money than any other candidate in history.  But without money specifically for the DNC, it will be a lot harder to win the down-ticket races.

To make it perfectly clear:  Obama is not “in the hole.”  The DNC is in the hole, which could potentially hurt Obama in a general election.  That’s not the same thing as Obama being in debt, because he’s not.

I never said Obama was is in debt. The national committees are essentially just fundraising arms of the presidentitial candidates during presidential elections. That is why it is relavant. The RNC and DNC will be putting all of their resources into electing McCain and Obama respectively. The fact of the matter is our candidate currently has fewer funds available than their candidate. Yes, Obama’s campaign has more money than McCain’s, but the RNC has a drastic cash advantage over the DNC and they will be using all of their resources to elect McCain.

The DNC and RNC won’t be spending any significant amount on down-ticket races. It’s a presidential year.

I never said Obama was is in debt.

You said, “He is currently in the hole” right there at 9:40 am.  The DNC is not a “he.”

If we need to campaign to get people to donate directly to the DNC so we can compete with the amount of money the RNC has already raised, that’s fine.  But running around saying, “He is currently in the hole” when we’re talking about Obama’s finances makes you look like you’re either an idiot or a liar.

The Republicans currently have more funds to spend on the presidential campaign then the Democrats do. Therefore, the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, currently has fewer total funds to spend on the election. Therefore, he is in the hole. I never said anyone was in debt. I clearly meant behind in fundraising.

The fact you can’t understand that the it is completely meaningless to talk about Obama’s fundraising advantage outside of the funds provided by the RNC and DNC makes you look like an idiot. It’s a completely arbitrary distinction. It’s like leading in field goals in a football game and not counting the touchdowns.

Can I buy that McCain bumper sticker somewhere? Because I really really want it.

I would also like ones that say, “My President goes to bed after Jeopardy!” and “My President <3 Matlock.”

Knowing the Democrats, if they win the presidency and both sides of Congress, they will pass a law that pushes Clinton’s debt on all taxpayers. If this issue continues to get press, don’t be surprised if the pundits start saying the same thing.

Hector: those statements are ageist.

Mike, they’ve already killed enough people. How do you think the campaign got into so much debt in the first place?

jed, the Democrats already control both houses of congress, and no one is predicting that will change in 2009. No one is predicting that the republicans will gain ground in either house. Also, I don’t hold the punditry in very high esteem, but why would anyone but a nutjob seriously think a bill would be passed to pay the Clinton’s debt? That’s too asinine even for Chris Matthews.

Thanks, Ms Kate. I found some of the other responses confusing, but yours really helped me understand why things are being done this way.

Hector: those statements are ageist.

Did you see the one with Homer Simpson’s dad?

I prefer to think of McCain as annodominally endowed, not old.

“why would anyone but a nutjob seriously think a bill would be passed to pay the Clinton’s debt?”

Ever hear of a bailout? It’s quite a popular solution for the nutjobs on both sides of the aisle. Those of us who are independents (or centrists or Libertarians (not that they have any credibility)) decide elections by choosing which nutjob is the least likely screwup. Also, no bill will ever pass that specifically addresses Clinton; it will be worded to cover all future candidates in a similar position, and then made retroactive.

Got the request yesterday asking to help pay for Hillary’s debt and also to support Obama to get the Republicans out of the White House.  I will do neither.  Just wish I could figure out how I could get the hundreds of dollars back I wasted on her Campaign.  The idea of her endorsing and planning to campaign for Obama reminds me of the stories of the women who return to abusive husbands for the “sake of the marriage”, and finally ended up beaten to death.  I am totally finished with the Democratic party.  I would not vote for Obama if Clinton was on the ticket as VP.  I would not vote for Obama if my own mother was on the Democratic ticket.  For some reason, as hard as I try, I cannot see that he is the new Messiah.  Is it because I am too busy bitterly clinging to my guns and religion, or is it because I don’t have a minister who “God Damns America” or friends that like to be photographed standing on the American flag?