"I'm Hillary Clinton and I Did Not Approve This Message!"

The short answer -- yes, but, at what cost?

Let's face it. The other night was not cute for the Hillary Clinton campaign. After Barack Obama's clean sweep of the Potomac Primary that capped a stunning eight-win streak, it was expected that even more of the Camp Clinton management would be sent virtual pink slips on their Blackberrys. While the campaign re-calibrates with populist new messaging in Ohio and Texas -- Jerome Armstrong at MyDD sparked some interesting discussion with his take of the "Why Won't Barack Debate Me?" spot in Wisconsin--word emerges that some of Hillary's top fundraisers want to take matters "out" of their checking accounts and "into" their own hands.

From this morning's Wall Street Journal, Page A10:

"At least two sets of Clinton fund-raisers are speaking with lawyers to figure out how to create independent entities to support Mrs. Clinton in Ohio, Texas and other primary contests." Reportedly, these are the top Hillraisers, such as Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of the Esprit clothing company, Hollywood producer Steven Bing, and, "[a]nother Clinton fund-raiser, who didn't want to be named because he hasn't made a final decision, said he may pump as much as $500,000 into television, radio and newspaper ads for Mrs. Clinton."

The stakes are high, especially headed into Texas, where the Channel '08 blog on WaPo, which tracks campaign television advertising, unveils some of the new Obama and Clinton spots and explains "there are 19 media markets and being in all of those markets on English and Spanish-language media costs approximately $1.5 million a week."

Clinton's financial fortunes have ebbed and flowed since Super Tuesday -- the campaign reports "more than $12 million has been raised online since Super Tuesday," but that's still less than the Obama campaign -- so the thought of big donors coming to the rescue and willing to "pump as much as $500,000 into television, radio and newspaper ads" could be, well, an attractive solution. Or, maybe not., because there are soooo many problems with these independent expenditures subsidiaries (IEs), which The Huffington Post first reported after Clinton's Iowa loss: There cannot be any connection with the campaign. The messaging is beyond the campaign's control. The independent ads will be compared to the "Swift Boat" campaign against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, or, more recently, that ridiculously racist "blonde bimbo" campaign that helped seal Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee. McCain has hired the producer of that commercial, by the way, so maybe they're working on something new and exciting.

The biggest problem with Hillary's big donors coming to the rescue? Two words: "Special interests."

So far in the 2008 campaign, the Wall Street Journal reports outside groups have spent $5.2 million on behalf of Clinton and $1.5 million for Obama, mostly coming from labor and the 'netroots, and, in Clinton's case, EMILY's List. Those are mostly issue-oriented causes and organizational so, no one is complaining. That will change the minute a multimillionaire donor begins underwriting commercials and media campaigns for the Clinton campaign--well, that possible endorsement from John Edwards could evaporate faster than Hillary's lead with pledged delegates. It also will become the latest talking point for the Clinton-obsessed frat boys at MSNBC, especially the baby-faced and venom-tongued Tucker Carlson, whose entire show is virtual psychotherapy exercise around his sexual insecurities.

It also would create yet another narrative for the Obama campaign, who has been hitting hard against Washington insiders and special interests, and, an opportunity for the John McCain campaign to step in because their guy was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act. Given the problems McCain is having with the far-right conservatives, that's probably not something he wants to boast about now.

So many options, and, none of them great. Camp Clinton is in trouble and needs all the help it can get, but, if Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination--and that's a big question mark right now--she probably wants to think long term about the convention and the general election. If she can clinch the nomination, it's only going to be after wining Ohio (likely), Texas (possible), and Pennsylvania (likely). Then it comes it will come down to the superdelegates. The last conversation you want to have is on the super "fundraisers."

Comments

[Plowboy]

It is possible that Hillary Clinton could win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania but if she doesn't win big somewhere she will still be behind with nowhere else to go. Hence she will probably get very negative. Sad story. It won't win for her and it can easily hurt the party's candidate. We cannot afford ("Hundred Years in Iraq") McCain.
We desperately need to put on a new face in foreign affairs. The bully tactics we have been using onnly make people dislike us.
We also need to stop trying to run other people's countries and fix some of the problems in our own.
I think the conclusions we should be making are obvious.
By the way, is there anyone who doesn't know about Eisenhower's warning concerning that military-industrial complex? It produces nno useful wealth, takes resources from other areas, and although we outspend the entire rest of the world, it has not exactrly made us safer.

[hinnis]

With all of the dirt in Obama's past and the extent to which he has misled the American public, I think Hillary has shown unbelievable restraint up to this point.

[uheardme]

Ok, why don't you enlightened us? Show us what you got or STFU.

[Groobiecat]

PLOW:

Agreed on all fronts. The "Arsenal of Democracy" is anything but--it's an arsenal of imposed "our way or the 1,000,000 of you will die" way. As much as I dislike Hillary's predictable tactics (she was much "nicer" when she was comfortably in the lead), we do need to ensure that John-Kill 'em All Let God Sort Them Out-McCain doesn't win. And that means mending rent fences.

HINNIS:
Yeah, put up or shut up: how, *specifically* has Barack misled the American public, and what, in his past is dirty? Or maybe you were confused and were referring to the extensive list of Clinton "dirt"--the most recent of which is Bill's charity getting money from brokering uranium deals in Kazakhstan for Canadian nuclear power corporations (the same industry that Hillary has railed against).

Or, perhaps you were referring to Harold Ickes, who, as a member of the DNC was for punishing FL and MI for moving up their primaries, but is now (as a member of the Clinton team) all for including their delegates?

Or, perhaps you were referring to Bill Clinton's assertion--made brilliant fun of by John Stewart--where he suggested that Barack's people leaned on union workers to vote for Barack or else they'd lose shift work. This is completely baseless innuendo that Clinton said, to paraphrase, was "the kind of underhanded politics he hadn't seen in a long time." Um, yeah.

As for "unbelievable restraint," perhaps you're referring to her recent comments (straight from Bush's playbook) where she says that speeches (which she makes plenty of, in case you haven't noticed) don't "put food on the table." WTF? And she does? Nonsense, utter, disagreeable sloganeering nonsense.

Listen, I gotta million of 'em. How about you?

[poeticjustice4all]

I'm a huge Hillary fan, but it's time to face up to reality. Clinton needs to call it quits before this starts to do serious damage to her politically and personally.

Assuming Clinton COULD actually win big in Texas and Ohio -- and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing -- there's still the reality of Hawaii, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

[jsinclair]

She may well win Texas, Ohio, and Penn. but it's unlikely she'll win big enough to establish herself as the clear frontrunner, like she was two months ago.

When you've "had it in the bag" for so long, then are coming in second place, or barely tied, in so many parts of the country, that should tell you something.

How does she possibly look at the electoral college map and see herself winning in November?

And does she even care about the impact on electing other Dems if the top of the ticket has no coattails?

Her people have been around a long time. They're a savvy bunch. Why not accept that MORE MONEY just isn't going to solve her biggest problem?

[oceankat]

I agree Hillary should quit. If we give people 2 candidates to vote for this year they might get uppity and expect it every year. Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, have always had only one candidate to vote for in previous elections why should they get a meaningful vote now. In a true democracy there should only be one person on the ballot.

[SeanGardner]

"If she can clinch the nomination, it's only going to be after wining Ohio (likely), Texas (possible), and Pennsylvania (likely)."

No, the state wins will go this way:

Ohio (unlikely)
Texas (remotely possible)
Pennsylvania (unlikely)

Two states are two weeks away. When Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii next Tuesday, you mean Hillary will still have a double digit lead in those states? Uh, no.

Plus, the unions are backing Obama right now in awesome numbers. Unions will be big players in both Wisconsin and Ohio.

And, lest we forget, Pennslyvania is on April 22nd, two months from now.

Barring a monumental collapse from Obama, this race is over.

[shanen]

I don't think the world will end with Hillary, but I think Obama is the far better candidate for several reasons. At this point, I think electability is #1, because I think Obama can generate much more positive energy to overcome the vicious neo-GOP attacks that are coming--and those attacks would come even if the Democrats nominated Jesus himself. I think both Gore and Kerry failed to beat back the viciousness, but Obama may be able to do it.

My #2 reason is that I think Hillary would be the first *wife* president more than the first woman president, and I just don't like nepotism. That's how you run dictatorships and kingdoms, not democracies. On her own, she's somewhat above average, but not nearly the best Democratic candidate, even compared to a couple of the ones who've already dropped out.

On the issues, they are pretty close, and both far separated from the neo-GOP and even from McCain's genuine GOP. Hard to believe the Republican Party was once progressive, eh? A lot of what happens next depends on the Congressional support and the power of the candidate's coattails. Obama should have a strong coattail effect, while Hillary is too busy pulling on Bill's.

By the way, I'm basically an interested bystander at this point, though I donated a few bucks to Obama and may send some more later. My own vote is apparently lost. Yes, I'm a native Texan, and I regard voting as a right and a duty. I'm not so religious, but I might even add "sacred" for both. However, my vote in Texas is controlled by Dubya's legacy in the office of the Secretary of State, and they apparently regard voting as a privilege and a boon. Each election they've made it harder for me, and last word is that I'll have to fight them for the boon this time--but you can't fight city hall. I would exercise my American right to vote and do my American duty--if I could.

[jeffAZ]

This Dem Race is purely Race issue. Sad that we Americans are becoming 3rd world democracy, no thinking, just mob out to 'our' color. Yes , We can be fooled.
What a right question from roncraw (If over 80% of whites in every state voted for Clinton there would be cries of racism.Shouldn't it be the same the other way?)
It not the question of HRC, BHO its question of Americans fairness. In 3rd world countries elections are won only on Race (Tribe), now America had joined 3rd world club.

[LionEater]

Oh please... I didn't see racists like you complaining when over 80% of blacks were supporting the white candidate.

[LionEater]

By the way, in Louisiana, 80% of whites voted for Clinton.

[nacilbuper]

jeffaz,

in the 2004 Illinois senate alan keyes got only 27 % of the vote, compared to obama's 73 %.

should the 73 % of voters that voted for obama be labeled racists (i'm sure a lot of them were african americans, by the way) for having voted against keyes?

i'm sure you got some snappy troll comeback for me.

[nacilbuper]

senate race

[roncraw]

If over 80% of whites in every state voted for Clinton there would be cries of racism.Shouldn't it be the same the other way?

[jeffAZ]

Face it, America is going to join 3rd World Countries. Days are not far off when some one may even suggest (like Kenya) let us call UN delegate to supervise American Dem election.
Yes You are correct, 'We are of same Tribe type of mob mentality' will cry when 80% of whites are even seems to be Together. We hoped that this Dem Election will unite America, like it or we do not like but certainly damaged is done. The cat has come out the bag

[specultr]

Before Bill Clinton opened his mouth, BHO wasn't black enough for many in the AA community. Thanks to the Clintons and BHO's success, blacks have unified behind a historical candidacy. Many women also only vote for Hillary because she's a woman. After 43 white male Presidents in a row for 200+ years, you two whining about racism come off as pathetic hypocrites.

[uheardme]

Sour grapes. Grow up.

[Silpat]

No, I think it would have been expected.

[pbarba1969]

Is this from the same campaign that so far as not agreed to honor McCain Feingold in a general election? Why hasn't Senator Obama replied to Senator McCain who he might face in a general election? If Senator Obama cannot stand up to John McCain now, how can he stand up to him in November...

[KaAp]

Because he does not have the nomination yet ... and he is trying to win the nomination of his party ... first things first ... I am quite sure he can stand up to McCain

[jsinclair]

His reply was posted here yesterday. It made a lot of sense.

You might, you know, READ IT.

[desmirl]

The world will not end if Hilary doesn't get the Democrat nomination.

[VicksieDo]

AMEN!

[on2them]

The world has a better chance of survival if she isn't nominated.