Should Obama Pay Clinton's Campaign Debt?
Posted by Ashish on 05.10.2008
He seems open to the idea...
During a campaign stop in Oregon yesterday, Obama seemed to leave the door open concerning helping to pay off Clinton's current campaign debt which some say is as high as $25 million, $11 million of which was loaned to the campaign directly from Clinton's personal fortune.
It's an interesting thing to think about, because Obama would essentially be using money people donated to his campaign to BEAT Clinton to pay off the debts Clinton accumulated while trying to beat Obama. It's a strange circle, but I guess most Obama supporters just want Clinton out of the picture at this point and if paying off her debts would make that a reality, they'd probably be for it. I think that it's a safe bet to assume that Clinton won't officially withdraw until she feels like she got something out of Obama, whether that is an agreement to seat Florida and Michigan in some way or get Obama to pay off her debt, sending her away with a consolation prize probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Plus, he'll probably come away looking good for it, helping out Clinton even though she spent the past few months attacking him relentlessly. People like the bigger man.
Posted By: Kevin (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 03:13 AM
I strongly believe that Mrs Clinton should pay her own debts.
I find it insulting to think that her negative behaviour throughout this campaign should be rewarded. It issending the wrong message .. if she werea naughty child.. and lets face it she has behaved like one.. would a parent reward her?.
Nope.. sorry .. this money was raised to beat John Mccain and that is what it should be used for ..
she can use her own 100 million to pay off her own debts...
Posted By: rosemary (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 03:19 AM
Sen. Hillary Clinton keeps thinking the presidency is her birth right. eventhough she says the party will unite, deep within she is hoping that it will not because how can she jusity she refusal to accept defeat apart from trying to tarnish Sen. Obama . As one pundit earlier mentioned, she is a Tonya harding , and it is unthinkable that she wants to be reward with a debt relieve
Posted By: icekey (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 03:43 AM
I don't think the Clintons will starve if she pays her own debts. Obama should not be using money from donors to pay her debts; those donations were made to make him the president, which means he should now use them to fight McCain, not to give to the Clintons and betray the donors.
Posted By: Dan (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 06:13 AM
Actually, he wouldn't be directly paying off her debt. That would be illegal, as it would vastly exceed campaign contribution limits. The question at stake is will he help pay off her debt by doing joint fundraisers and encouraging his donors (especially those who have maxed out on his campaign) to donate to Clinton to pay off her debt. Even when she is out of the race she can still raise money to pay off debt, and Obama can encourage his huge donor base to help with that.
The major problem with this is that Obama is much more reliant on a wide base of small donors than a handful of large maximum donation donors. There aren't as many Obama supporters who gave the maximum and are free to give even more to Clinton. The people who gave $500 or less are less likely to help Clinton pay off her debt. If they are going to give an additional political donation, they would much rather it went to Obama's general election campaign than Clinton's debt campaign.
Posted By: Jeff Modzelewski (Registered) on May 10, 2008 at 06:55 AM
For that amount of money, he should get to do Ms. Clinton in an uncomfortable place.
Posted By: JimboJoeBob (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 11:34 AM
like the back of a Volkswagen?
Posted By: Rick (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM
What a debate! I can hardly believe my eyes! Help Clinton pay off her campaign debts? Have we Americans all gone bonkers? Why the heck do we love so much to keep rich people rich, so that they can continue to spit in our faces with impunity? Why are we even debating such an absurd topic, being poor, hard-working Americans ourselves, who can hardly pay our own mortgages and keep our kids in decent homes? By Jove, Hillary and Bill are rich, spoilt people, and are guaranteed to be even richer, no matter what becomes of this campaign. Chelsea Clinton is already a big-time multi-millionaire, until she dies, and then, her inherited millions will go to her children and grandchildren, while ours continue to wallow like swine in their inherited debts. Are we really a crazy people as has been suggested by so many in our midst and in the rest of the world? Why the heck should Hillary Clinton's campaign debts be a topic for us, when our mortgages are not a topic for Hillary, Bill and Chelsea? We do need very desperately a reality check in America. At last official count the Clintons had amassed 109.2 million dollars in their bank accounts, and they will amass hundreds of millions more after this campaign. Let us stop being such gargoyles and lackeys of the rich and famous in America. Let us STOP this nonsense once and for all. Let us take this reality check and rearrange our mental faculties please! Otherwise, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are guaranteed to be ashamed of the legacy we would have left for many hundreds of years to come. God bless America.
Posted By: The Baron (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 01:18 PM
"For that amount of money, he should get to do Ms. Clinton in an uncomfortable
place."
It might be worth pointing out that by staying in the race even after she has no chance of winning, she's been doing him in an uncomfortable place...
Then again, it might not be worth it. :)
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Obama owes Hillary Nothing. Hell the country owes her nothing. If she ends up on the street Broke and poor it's none of anybodys buisness. Worst case scenario with Hillary having to pay these herself, She has to go to a home with only 5 bathrooms and stop hosting huge parties. She's rich as Chocolate Cake!
Obama should be suing Her for slander! not offering her money!
She should be less concerned about being a rich ugly bat and more worried about getting her daughter married off!
Posted By: Davy (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 02:53 PM
It's not about anyone "owing" anything to anyone. It's a strategy to try to unite the party. If Obama helps Clinton with her debt through joint fundraisers and encouraging his donor base to help her pay her debts, it will go along way in bringing her supporters on board. Remember, this isn't a situation where Clinton didn't get any votes. She has a very large base, which Obama needs to hang on to in November in order to win. If he helps Clinton pay her debt, it will show unity within the party and it will help bring her supporters on board. This is a very common practice in primary politics to help unite the party after a hotly contested primary.
Posted By: Jeff Modzelewski (Registered) on May 10, 2008 at 03:07 PM
The way she's treated him? Hell no. Let's see how she reacts in the lead-up to November, and if we the voters feel she put forth an admirable effort perhaps then would be the time to help her financially. Now? She deserves nothing. She's been trying to sabotage Obama for the general election, and that's not the kind of behavior that merits a reward.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Jeff Modzelewski's reasoning is sound, on condition that Hillary STOP accumulating more debt NOW in this futile Huckabee-style game, in the interest of the Party unity Jeff speaks of. It makes sense therefore for her campaign to say to her ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, in a race that she has already lost. If Hillary can show such magnanimity then the Obama campaign team can consider that option. BUT, she should show a genuine desire for Party unity for the option to even be considered. God bless America.
Posted By: The Baron (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 05:42 PM
I like Clinton, well, "like" might be a strong choice of words, but I don't hate her and I'd be happy if she took the nomination and the white house, but fuck her and her debt. She could've done what most sensible people in her position would've done over a month ago and that's drop out of the race. It's pay to play and if she wants to stay in until the last possible moment that's her choice and she should eat the cost on her own.
Posted By: Michael O (Registered) on May 10, 2008 at 07:25 PM
I was set for a long rant but The Baron and Jeff Modzelewski make numerous great points. My problem is Hillary is STILL attacking Obama on electability. I don't think we need her and want to see her crushed into a fine paste. Unless she stops now, let the ruthless bitch pay her own bills.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Obama, electable? How so? I've yet to hear how he is going to pay for "free" health care without talking about tax hikes.
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Clinton should pay Obama's debts for not quitting sooner.
Posted By: Drum Solo (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Why is it that no one is explaining why Obama is electable? You can't stand on his issues as he refuses to explain them in detail and tell the American people how his socialist mandates will be paid.
You basically think he's electable because of his personality and youth. Hardly reasons to elect a President.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Michael, do you read? Have you visited Obama's website? What's socialist about Obama? And you seem to want to point out that folks are going to elect Obama simply on his personality and youth? Michael, have you sat back for a moment to ponder how EMPTY you sound? Man, do yourself a favor and visit Obama's websites, read his second book, "Audacity of Hope" before the elections, and listen more honestly & carefully to his proposals with an open ear and mind. Then you might hear what he has been saying all along and you might STOP repeating some of the crap that Hillary is now regretting that she did so much. Remember the old adage, "there is none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE and none so deaf as those who WILL NOT HEAR." Do yourself a favor man and go read and listen, instead of echoing Hillary's empty old cliches.
Posted By: The Baron (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Michael: When someone demonstrates the ability to get the most votes and be elected, we call that person electable. Get it? The term has nothing to do with whether you like him and everything to do with the fact that a majority of Americans would rather vote for Richard Nixon's corpse than have four more years of failed Bush policy under McCain. John did the right thing to win the primary (selling out what he purported to believe in) but it will cost him dearly in November. No pro-war candidate will win this time, no matter how many bigoted inbred hicks, hillbillies, rednecks, yokels and rubes occupy the south.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Ah yes. I'm dealing with simple minded folks who are easily persuaded by empty catch phrases like change, hope, and prosperity by someone who has yet to detail how he is going to bring it about.
How do I know he's a socialist? Look at his background and the people he's associated with. He wants to usher in a socialist style health care system. He wants to raise taxes and increase the size of government.
If he wants to prove he's not a socialist, he should pledge to not raise taxes to fund his inept "free" health care scam. Of course, it will not happen because he knows Republicans and Conservatives alike are the only ones who could fund "free" health care because his base consists of drug addicts and homeless people and others who leach off the hard work of working class Americans.
Again, he's not electable. Once McCain starts to question Obama's way of funding "free" health care, he'll become another Walter Mondale.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 05:01 PM
She let her strong base of hard working white Americans pay her campaign debts. perhaps if she had the base of supporters she imagines she has, there would be no debt.
Posted By: chris (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 09:21 PM
I don't think it's right that a wife, son or daughter of a ex-president can run or hold a state or goverment office. Also has their been any other persidential canidents in history that has been repaid their campain losses??
Posted By: T.W. Thomas (Guest) on May 12, 2008 at 04:32 PM
There is no way Obama should pay even a penny of her debt. It can be perceived as a payoff to end her campaign. I hope he has the smarts to see that.
Posted By: Ben (Guest) on May 26, 2008 at 06:26 AM
why should I donate to Obama's campaign when he will pay , Clinton's debt. Is this another political game people play in washington. Would she pay his debt. I doubt that. I was going to contribute, but now I am going to keep my money in my pocket.
Posted By: bonnie (Guest) on June 06, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Weeks (more than 8) ago I said that every woman of voting age (every class, creed, nationality, culture) should have posed this question to Hillary: Even if I didn't vote for you in the primary, but IF you become the Democratic nominee, WHAT WILL I INHERIT FROM YOU? "Inherit" is the key word. Now, we know- we inherit her accounting mess. No, for the sake of all women who have been "forced" to give up before an apparent truth is evident, I wouldn't have wanted her to get out of the race. However, when she KNEW that money was running out, she stayed in -under the guise of "I'm doing this for all White women and (White) blue-collar workers". Now she's using her alleged 18M such voters as leverage to get others to foot her bill. The only way WE can clear her debt is through fundraisers. Little does she know that the $5 contributor can clearly tell her: YOU OWE ME!
Posted By: Nia (Guest) on June 06, 2008 at 10:53 AM
STAY CURRENT