Hillary Clinton and the Ghosts of 2006

Maybe Hillary Clinton's right that going back to the candidates' past illuminates their character. I'm not sure we need to know whether they spilled their milk in kindergarten, but let's look at the 2006 election. Barack Obama's Hope Fund PAC, Hillary claims, deliberately contributed to candidates in key early primary states that year, with the aim of securing their later support. Never mind that the Hope Fund gave to a broad spectrum of candidates -- including, oddly, Hillary herself. If she really wants Democratic voters to judge their potential nominees on their 2006 choices, she may not like the judgments they make.

2006 was a Democratic opportunity, and grassroots supporters dug deep and then deeper to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races. Hillary, meanwhile, made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign.

You could say she was just playing the game, but John Edwards and Barack Obama, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for their own pending campaigns. The Edwards campaign ended that season still in debt from 2004. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.

For another contrast, the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million that season, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $103 million. Hillary spent more than a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America that year. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history. And she did this for a race that was never in doubt.

Imagine if she'd transferred $20 million into the dozen congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. By late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance in more of these races. That's why so many of us were stretching to contribute, even when it hurt. Hillary made different decisions. Much as may have been true with her support of a recent Iran vote so reckless that Senator James Webb called it "Dick Cheney's pipe dream," her priority was election-year positioning.

If we compare Hillary's actions to those of the ordinary citizens whose time and money made a critical difference, she comes up short. She also comes up short compared to her main Democratic rivals. While the money she spent may have gained her a few extra points of electoral margin, it did nothing to shift the power from an administration she said she opposed. If we're going to use 2006 as a measure of presidential character, we might remember the choices Hillary could have made -- and the priorities she chose instead.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles.

Comments

[MrsHaskell]

Great post, as always. Never mind the fact that she sucked up money that could have gone to struggling candidates. That kind of spending is objectionable from a purely people are starving perspective. It really is all about her, isn't it?

[Julia333]

Great article. Makes me wonder if she will run as an independent if she doesn't get the nomination.

[jeffmorgan]

Thanks Paul Loeb, this is something I haven't seen anywhere else!

[researcher]

hillary knows the american people the very best it got her hubby elected twice. she has been running for the general election but may have some trouble now getting there.

she knows to win in 2008 in nov she must appeal to a very imperialistic might makes right nation.

americans have become imperialists in their hearts and ready to bomb anyone they think they can make a buck from like iraq's oil fields.

year after year of the massive military offensive budget says it all and not a peep from demos or repubs alike.

christianty may have died on the cross but karma is still around.

look at the results of dear old england and its years of imperialism. only country behind it now in europe is greece in standard of living stats.

[TishiJo]

Strategy: Clinton accuses Obama of the very crimes she is guilty of to put Obama on the defense, to cast doubt on Obama in the minds of voters, and distract everyone away from the shameful truth. Thank you for reporting the truth. Obama 08!

[MsLiz]

Thanks Mr. Loeb. I just moved another increment away from HRC. I wonder what she will do if she doesn't get the nomination; will she donate the money to the nominee, or save it for her Senate/Presidency races in four years? This money was donated to her by people who want a Democrat in the White House, even if it isn't HRC.

[Boadicea]

Thanks for spelling it out.

Gosh, all that money, and she didn't even help Harold Ford. Wow.

[globalcitizenlinda]

Fantastic article that points out who really has the Democrcatic Party's long term interest at heart and who has their own personal ambitions as paramount at all costs.

I pointed out this very 2006 proof of party betrayal on some articles on this Huff written with the intention of criticizing Obama's Hopefund.

One can see that the PAC for one candidate had a positive effect for grassroots efforts to regain majority while another just plotted for their own future campaigns. I am now glad hat Mr. Loeb took the time to bring the facts to bear so clealy about who really stands up for all Dems.

Once again I ask those in Democratic Party Machine, why do you ignore the evidence before you that the person you support so aggresively do not always return the favor in efforts that grow and expand the party?

[Obama2008]

Thanks Paul. This is another great, eye opening blog.

[RealBlackGirl]

Black America please pay attention to the fact that she did not help Harold Ford. She claims to have an agenda for our community and understand our needs, but she did not understand how important it was to support Harold Ford. I distinctly recall Obama speaking at a rally for Harold Ford to help close the gap. The money she could have sent could have paid for advertising to counteract the racist ad by his opponent. Let's not even talk about what the Clinton machine did to Al Gore. She is privilege and entitlement in action.

[Countess]

Thank you for pointing out how un 'democratic' mrs. clinton really is. She will not share any of her huge lobbyist campaign chest money with other candidates. She votes with Bush and keeps all the money for herself.

[katiekat489]

Thanks for an enlightening post although I did know some of this-especially that senate race which she wanted to use to springboard to the Presidency.That is why her latest salvo about Obama will not wash.He raised money and campaigned for candidates. The only thing she does is to line her coffers and do the bidding of the money men.Hopefully we will not have to face having her our nominee--she will lose and by a large margin to whomever she runs against not to mention the down ticket people fighting to get seats.

[altohone]

Hillary has a lot of nerve to try to make hay in this arena.

Not only did she fail to share the wealth for the sake of the party, she also uses her funds to put key players in primary states on her payroll as consultants.

I seem to recall Hillary also paid off nearly a million in campaign debts for Vilsack before he became a supporter.

[SamThornton]

Candidate Hillary also did not end Global Warming, inspire the Yankees to a World Series victory, nor end poverty in America.

I don't mind principled excoriation of any candidate for the office of President, however, it would be more interesting if the focus were on actual deeds rather than a laundry list of sins supposed of omission.