Clinton vows to go down on Shep

[Durandal]

I had been under the impression that Michigan and Florida have been taken care of. They broke the rules, punishment was dolled out and re-vote plans for both are dead in the water, and if the DNC lets their votes in unmodified, there'll be hell to pay from Obama's supporters. The fact that Hillary is still harping on these two states means that she knows she doesn't have a chance in hell of closing the delegate gap without them.

But with all the calls from Democratic officials to stop her campaign and talk of "consolation prizes" lately, it's pretty clear that the DNC recognizes who would be the nominee were the loser anybody else. The fact that someone like Leahy is calling for Hillary to quit publicly means that he's pretty damn sure that Obama will be the nominee. That Bob Casey is willing to go against her and endorse Obama despite the fact that she's currently winning in his state means that he's not particularly concerned with the possibility of her reprisal.

So there are a good chunk of Democratic party leaders who are convinced Obama will get the nomination, and they're not afraid to say so publicly. Combine this with the fact that she's calling up pledged delegates and telling them that they're allowed to reverse their pledged votes, and it paints a pretty bleak picture for her. It means that she's falling out of favor with her stronghold, the Democratic establishment. So now she has to resort to more desperate, sleazy measures.

That's what gives me hope. She might want to stay in the race to the bitter end, but Reid has said publicly, in no uncertain terms, that the race won't go on that long. The DNC will put its foot down eventually, and it will do so before the convention. They're most likely just waiting until June, when it'll be official that Clinton can't win. Maybe they figure they owe the Clintons that much, and they may be right. But waiting any longer than that would be borderline suicidal, and they know it.

[Durandal]

By the way, fun little tidbit about Clinton's latest dirty trick of telling pledged delegates that they can vote for whomever they want ...

Clinton Delegate Strategy Backfiring?
Category:
Posted on: March 29, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Here's an interesting story. Longtime Dispatches reader Jeff Hebert emailed me this story of the Clinton campaign trying to get pledged delegates to change their votes at the convention. Full story below the fold:

I always enjoy it when someone tries to rewrite the rules to their advantage, only to have it turn around and burn them. I went to the Texas Democratic caucus for my precinct to try and vote for Obama, but unfortunately we didn't have enough people there for him to qualify for any of the precinct's share of delegates. I ended up being assigned as a delegate anyway (the turnout was pretty low), and said I'd vote for Hillary per the will of my fellow caucus-goers, since my guy didn't garner enough support.

Yet, twice now in the last three days, the Clinton campaign has called me to try and convince me that as a delegate I don't have to vote for who I said I'd vote for, I'm allowed to change my mind if I want. Presumably they are doing this because they got their asses kicked in the caucus statewide by Obama, and so they want to get me to flip my assumed vote for Obama to Clinton.

However, they've achieved exactly the opposite -- I didn't know until they called that I even had the option, I thought I was forced to vote as the caucus had decided. Thanks to Hillary trying to change the rules after the fact and play dirty, I now can vote for my original guy with a clear conscience.

Be careful what you sow, for thereso shall ye reap, Mrs. Clinton.

Very interesting, don't you think?

[Glocksman]

In other Clinton Train Wreck™ news, her campaign is still having trouble paying the bills.

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
March 30, 2008 11:38 AM EST

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."

Just like with other businesses, it’s common for campaigns to carry unpaid bills from month to month, but in Clinton’s case, it also could serve a strategic purpose.

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $38 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other upfront expenses would have been less than $2 million.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.

The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain reported $4.3 million in debt at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week.

It’s not just the size of Clinton’s debts that’s noteworthy. It’s also that her unpaid bills extend beyond the realm of high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own.

Some of Clinton’s biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who’s owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who’s owed $467,000.

Clinton also reported debts more than one month old to a slew of apolitical businesses and organizations, large and small, in the states through which this historically expensive Democratic primary campaign has raged.



She owed Iowa’s Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire’s Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs, Qwest $24,000 for phone service, various branches of the Iowa-based supermarket chain Hy-Vee $15,000 for food, beverages and catering, and $7,700 to Ohio and Massachusetts branches of the theatrical stage employees’ union, for equipment costs.

In fact, about a third of the nearly 700 individual debts Clinton reported at the end of February were for various types of “event expenses,” including $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security.

Event production is important to big-time presidential campaigns. It shapes how candidates look and sound, not just to the thousands of people who turn out to campaign speeches and rallies but also to the millions who catch snippets of them on television.

And word is getting around that Clinton’s campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two of Youngstown, Ohio.

“I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally,” said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client.

The Clinton campaign paid the company $16,500 to set up a stage, press riser, sound system and backdrops at a Youngstown high school last month for a raucous union rally, where an aggressive Clinton stump speech drew thunderous applause. But the Clinton campaign has yet to pay Forty Two for two other February events, and the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn’t respond to a certified letter.

“We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment’s notice and do absolutely everything to a ‘t’ to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign,” said the employee. “Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.”

Forty Two also has done events for Obama’s campaign, which has paid its bills promptly, according to the employee. FEC records show Obama’s campaign paid the company $18,500.

Show Tyme Exhibits, another Youngstown event production company, has produced political events for years and had never had problems getting paid before Clinton, according to owner Jim Phillips.

He said he’s still waiting for a payment for setting up the sound system and stage for Clinton’s February tour of a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.

“It was only $607, but I’m a small guy; I could use that,” said Phillips, adding, “Everyone I can tell, I do tell about it. You tell somebody something bad about somebody, they tell 10 other people.”

Both Phillips and the Forty Two employee said they voted for Clinton in Ohio’s March 4 primary, which she won handily, but regret their votes and are reluctant to work for her campaign again.

Their sentiments aren’t universal in the event production world, though.

At the end of January, Clinton owed $38,000 to ACS Sound and Lighting of Columbia, S.C. But the company was paid in full last month and is planning to do events for Clinton in other states, according to manager Troy Gwin.

“We don’t have any problem with them,” he said. “I’d continue to do business after the primaries if she is the nominee. I would love to.”

And Tony Galarza, director of the Missoula, Mont., branch of a national event production company, remained committed to staging an April 6 Clinton fundraising brunch at a local hotel even after a colleague in his company e-mailed a list of Clinton’s campaign debts.

Galarza said he’s confident Clinton will pay his company but admitted he was surprised to see so many event production companies among the campaign’s creditors.

“Once I looked at those numbers, I realized how important to our economy nationally these elections are,” he said. “Just the sheer numbers listed there were immense.”

Now what was that about her 'experience' and management skills?

[Durandal]

Yeah, so the guy with "no experience" is the one running the financially successful campaign that's put him in a winning position with minimal turnover in staffers.

I shudder at the thought of this man getting a hold of the federal government. Truly.

[Covenant]

The new thread title makes my eyes bleed.

[Mr Bean]

The new thread title makes my eyes bleed.

Says the man with THAT avatar

[MKSheppard]

I approve of this new title.

[Shinova]

I approve of this new title.

Necrophile.



Now if only Clinton weren't surrounded by a bunch of yesmen she'd wake up and realize she has no real chance of winning.

[Patrick Degan]

By the way, fun little tidbit about Clinton's latest dirty trick of telling pledged delegates that they can vote for whomever they want ...

Clinton Delegate Strategy Backfiring?
Category:
Posted on: March 29, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Here's an interesting story. Longtime Dispatches reader Jeff Hebert emailed me this story of the Clinton campaign trying to get pledged delegates to change their votes at the convention. Full story below the fold:

I always enjoy it when someone tries to rewrite the rules to their advantage, only to have it turn around and burn them. I went to the Texas Democratic caucus for my precinct to try and vote for Obama, but unfortunately we didn't have enough people there for him to qualify for any of the precinct's share of delegates. I ended up being assigned as a delegate anyway (the turnout was pretty low), and said I'd vote for Hillary per the will of my fellow caucus-goers, since my guy didn't garner enough support.

Yet, twice now in the last three days, the Clinton campaign has called me to try and convince me that as a delegate I don't have to vote for who I said I'd vote for, I'm allowed to change my mind if I want. Presumably they are doing this because they got their asses kicked in the caucus statewide by Obama, and so they want to get me to flip my assumed vote for Obama to Clinton.

However, they've achieved exactly the opposite -- I didn't know until they called that I even had the option, I thought I was forced to vote as the caucus had decided. Thanks to Hillary trying to change the rules after the fact and play dirty, I now can vote for my original guy with a clear conscience.

Be careful what you sow, for thereso shall ye reap, Mrs. Clinton.

Very interesting, don't you think?

I called it, didn't I?

[Galvatron]

If Hillary put half as much energy into being this much of a conniving, ballbusting cunt about George W. Bush's maladministration, the fucker might have been suitably impeached by now.

But I guess she prefers to devour her own. I hope she catches an STD from Bill.

[Guardsman Bass]

Couldn't these Clinton creditors organize a set of lawsuits against her campaign? At the very least, it would probably result in a public embarassment for her campaign that would put a ton of pressure on them to pay their damn bills (there was a New York Times article about this kind of thing way back, where a deli-owner in New York City sued the Clinton campaign for money owed for sandwiches and the like in small claims court, whereupon the campaign folded and gave him the money).

[Havok]

Ok... Who changed the title?

[Zablorg]

Ok... Who changed the title?

'Twould be good sir Bean, as the OP edit indicates.

[Invictus ChiKen]

'Twould be good sir Bean, as the OP edit indicates.

BEAN YOU SON OF A BITCH YOU OWE ME A NEW CHAIR!

Now then. I'm wondering, will all this mismanagement and such finally force Hillary out? What if she decides to run as an independent?

[Gandalf]

What if she decides to run as an independent?

Why the fuck would she do that?

She can barely make a majority within her own party, so how would she ever possibly make a vible independant candidate?

[Spin Echo]

What if she decides to run as an independent?

Why the fuck would she do that?

She can barely make a majority within her own party, so how would she ever possibly make a vible independant candidate?

Well, she does seem to be showing a disconnect with reality...

[The Original Nex]

She has said that the Democratic Party will ultimately unify around the winning candidate, so enough already with the paranoid "she'll run as an Independent" nonsense.

[Rye]

Yeah, so the guy with "no experience" is the one running the financially successful campaign that's put him in a winning position with minimal turnover in staffers.

Have any political/media pundits said this yet? This is the sort of thing that people ought to be saying to really kill her chances off and give Obama the credit he deserves and Hillary the lack of respect she's earned. It'd be a shame if nobody was really hitting on this one.

[Jaevric]

She has said that the Democratic Party will ultimately unify around the winning candidate, so enough already with the paranoid "she'll run as an Independent" nonsense.

Except, of course, that assumes *she* will be the winning candidate. I can't see her throwing her support behind Obama at this point even if he wins the nomination.

[18-Till-I-Die]

As usual i preface this post by stating i actually like Hillary, and still do, and i agree with her on several issues though i also disagree with her on some things they're relatively minor and irelevent to a presidency.

Anyway...

I don't think this will harm the Obama campaign, as many political talking heads seem to. But i do think this will harm the Democrats in general. I've heard many times, from various sources, that many people who support Hillary are extremely fanatical...more so than Hillary herself...and many have said they simply will NOT vote for Obama under any circumstances.

The general thrust of this point of view seems to be that it is a woman's "turn", and thus Hillary's "turn", to be president and Obama is somehow "bullying" her out of her chance. Now i'm not one to believe in such nonsense as "turns" and whatnot, but i think that at this point Hillary's campaign is garnering dangerous thoughts in some people who support her. I think most Obama supporters would go behind Clinton if she won; i would, as her opinions are basically identical where it counts with Obama's and what i disagree with her on are single-issues...and frankly i find "single issue voting" retarded, so i go with who i agree with most.

At this point it's not about, will i vote for Hillary, Obama or McCain it's about me voting for whichever democrat wins the nomination (and by the way, i actually like McCain as a person, i just disagree with...basically all of his political views so i cant vote for him in good conscious). Butw hile i think most Obama supporters, the ones i know at least, would shrug their shoulders and vote for Hillary if she won...most Hillary supporters seem to be, from what i understand, far more entrenched and fanatical and willing to torpedo the Dems and even vote for McCain if need be should they feel that Obama has "cheated" her out of her "turn".

Am i the only one who has heard things like this from various politicos? Cause i hear regularly about the fanaticism of Hillary supporters and, to be honest, i've seen it too...during one of the debates there was a link to a pro-Hillary site and to be honest they were almost as hostile, if not more so, towards Obama as any republican i've ever seen. That scares me, and bothers me, more than anything Hillary herself does.

[Galvatron]

I've heard many times, from various sources, that many people who support Hillary are extremely fanatical...more so than Hillary herself...and many have said they simply will NOT vote for Obama under any circumstances.

You just described my grandmother. She told me yesterday that she's going to hold her nose and vote for McCain. Why? Because Obama's "a liar and a Muslim."

That's right, she's fallen for the Muslim Manchurian Candidate smear hook, line and sinker.

[CmdrWilkens]

The gneral election electability argument is one that both sides can make for long endless hours and it comes down to what happens to the constituency which feels fucked over? In the case of Hillary the pro-Union centrists and Democratic women are not voting Republican (unless they were going to anyway, the Union centrists are just about as likely to vote for war hero McCain as defender of the poor Hillary). They might stay home which would supress democratic turnout but mostly from the GOTV organizational level whereby Unions serve the Dems much like fundies serve the Republicans. Obama has built a huge GOTV organization which doesn't rely on the union help (though it would benifit from it) so he wouldn't be hurt as much by that bit of voter suppresion. If Obama losses out then it will be at a brokered convention where the pledged delegate total, states won, and total vote are overturned so the black vote will disintegrate, the youth vote will dissappear and the independents will flock back to McCain. Hillary will still have the core democratic constituency with maybe some additional Latino votes (though McCain probably got points for being one of few semi-progressive Republicans on the immigration issue) and the Union vote machine but she will have lost the huge black vote and will have to play defensive in a lot of states which should be comfortable Democratic strongholds.

Simply put Obama stands a better chance of building a center-left and liberal left coalition than Clinton does a center-left, middle-left coalition which can beat McCain. He has more pull on the center-left group and she will have alienated the liberal left group. The end result is that, espeically wiht a few months to tell voters why he is a better choice than McCain, Obama stnads a better chance to win the general election.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Quite frankly, if this woman is going to attract bigoted retards of this variety, all the more bloody reason we should not have her in office. God knows what kind of groveling simpletons she will surround herself in office, and next minute, we have a presidency as incompetent as the current one.

[Stark]

Why would women 'automatically' vote for Hillary? I mean, is it just some pathetic identification thing, where they feel like 'they' are being elected because they're 'both women'? It seems strange to me that people often talk about women just mindlessly supporting Hillary, regardless of what she says and does, just because she's a woman.

At least in Obama's case you can say minorities vote for him because he actually seems to give a shit about their issues, and he apparently brings more of them out to vote.

[Darth Wong]

She has creeped me out ever since I saw The Daily Show's montage of Hillary's horribly orchestrated "spontaneous" laughter clips in response to very serious questions. Absolutely nothing I've heard since then changes my opinion of her as the most cringe-inducingly insincere human being in politics. And that's really saying something.