MyDD :: Clinton Ended January in the Red

Clinton Ended January in the Red

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST

It looks like Hillary Clinton really did need to loan her campaign $5 million last month:

Hillary Rodham Clinton ended January with $7.6 million in debt -- not including the $5 million personal loan she gave to her campaign in the run-up to the critical Super Tuesday elections, according to financial reports released Wednesday.

In contrast, Democratic rival Barack Obama's campaign's finances continued to be robust.

He reported raising nearly $37 million and spending nearly $31 million. His cash balance was $25 million, of which roughly $20 million can be spent on the primary. He reported a comparatively small $1 million in debts, owed largely to just three vendors.

[..]

According to the reports, Clinton raised about $20 million in January, including her loan. She spent nearly $29 million during the month.

She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.

But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.

More than $2 million of the red ink is owed to chief consultant and adviser, Mark Penn. But the lengthy laundry list of IOUs also includes unpaid bills ranging from insurance coverage, phone banking, printing and catering at events in Iowa, New Hampshire and California.

If I'm reading this article correctly (and I don't have the filings themselves in front of me right now), it looks like Barack Obama ended January with about a net $19 million in primary dollars in the bank compared with the net negative $3.6 million held by her campaign. I think that $22.6 million difference in available cash at the beginning of this month gives us a bit more of an idea as to why the Clinton campaign is not keeping pace with the Obama campaign in terms of advertising in the key states of Ohio and Texas, as well as why it would not be enough for the Clinton campaign to merely match Obama dollar for dollar in fundraising at this point (and I'm not convinced that they are quite keeping up right now, even if they are closer than they were in January).

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Fundraising, Democratic Primaries (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (1.50 / 2)

Thats why there gonna attempt to swift boat Obama. After all they are the Clinton's and they'll do anything to win at all costs.

by anujtron on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

Grow up. I'd think we want someone with a killer's instinct when it comes to winning a campaign. Do you want to lose an historic election because our candidate didn't have the cajones to run a deceptive, but lethal attack ad? No.

I'm not defending outright theft of an election or vicious personal attacks, but politics is a rough business. Believe it or not, Axelrod (Patrick and Obama notwithstanding) is one of the best neagtive ad men in the business. So Obama has the people he needs to mount a negative campaign.

by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

Obama has a special gift, too--He can go negative on McCain with a smile on his face. He tore into him on Tuesday night in his victory speech, talking about his crazy stances on Iraq and other issues. But he did it in a pleasing manner that lets him get the "negative" without the "attack".

by Kal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (2.00 / 1)

I'm sure that somehow the most rabid of Clinton supporters will spin this into an attack on Obama. It hasn't let up for days now.

by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

I have a feeling that some Obama supporters will jump and attack and prove you wrong.

See below or above:-)

by Sandeep on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

By its nature, it's an article critical of the campaign. I take no special pleasure in the fact that a worthy candidate effectively crippled herself by hiring such incompetent aides.

by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

So Obama has the experience to know how to balance a budget and Hillary does not.

by bigdavefromqueens on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST

(Comment Deleted) (none / 0)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (Comment Deleted) (none / 0)

And what should our reaction be to you?

by The Animal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (Comment Deleted) (none / 0)

Was there any need to attack Hillary? Really?

by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (2.00 / 1)

Hmmmm....... there's no reason they should have had money trouble at the end of January. Wasn't the overall plan to be go into Super Tuesday strong? Organizationally, someone really fell asleep at the switch. Can't blame this on Penn or the media people. Was Solis-Doyle THAT bad?

by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

Could it have been an allocation problem? How much do they have banked for the general, anyway?

by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

Apparently. But where was the money allocated? It certainly wasn't to organization smaller states. Moreover, Clinton's financial advantage was understated because she had much of local political machinery behind her (big city mayors). That support had to be worth a few millions of dollars alone.

The Clinton campaign always saw Feb. 5th as the earliest clinching date and so they had to have planned on the campaign atleast lasting that long. There's no reason why they should have run out of money at the end of January. Where did it go?

by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

The problem is that Hillary Clinton did not plan past Super Tuesday. Period.

While I would vote for her if she pulls this out, that kind of arrogance disturbs me. She took WAAY too much for granted to be a decent POTUS.

Barack planned, fundraised and actively campaigned in 50+1 states. Hell, the superdelgate from Idaho said he was for Barack because 'Barack didn't fly over our state, the way the rest of the politicians do". Barack used the internet and made his supporters feel like they were part of the campaign.
He surrounded himself with the right people, and he wasn't afraid to admit he didn't know something. He used some of the Clinton's people, which tell me he has a grasp on new ideas if needed, but will used the old ideas if they work the best.

Hillary did none of this. And that's a problem. Her base didn't grow because she didn't adapt.

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think I can speak to just some of the waste (2.00 / 1)

that I witnessed as I covered the NH as a blogger for BelowBoston.com through the summer and into the fall of 2007....

I attended a speech she gave in Derry NH concerning foreclosure on Aug 7.

I was accompanied by a fellow blogger and we signed in as media and it immediately struck us as we had been busy trying to catch all the democratic candidates as they campaigned in NH - it appeared as if her aides had aides who in turn had assistants. Just a surplus of people which in the other campaigns the same jobs were being done by one or at the most 2 people.

Additionally, on the "micro -level" at that event the staff was passing out fans that one would use to wave in front of the face because it was hot and on it was printed the date of the speech and the location, Derry, and I remember thinking - wow, those fans can never be used again, a nice momento but the cost to print up what, 600? instead of a generic "fan" that could be used over and over again.

How to spend over $140 million - guess alot goes to a surplus of aides and costly details that really mean what in the long run?

by merbex on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM EST

thanks for the details (none / 0)

Let's not forget the 500K in parking costs!

by highgrade on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Probably the biggest Clinton campaign mistake (none / 0)

And easily the most overlooked mistake (because it explains much of the other tactical errors) was not sending the signal to its supporters that they needed money.

I think most of her backers assumed she had plenty of money because she was always presented as the fund-raising leader with plenty of resources.

As soon as they put the story of the loan out there, her online donations shot through the roof.

Perhaps its that they didn't anticipate a contest moving past Super Tuesday, but if they had made it clear to their supporters earlier that their financial situation was in need of immediate help, this probably wouldn't have happened. And if they aren't struggling with money, they probably contest some of these states that Obama has rolled through lately.

by dcg2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:59:17 PM EST

That is very true (none / 0)

Obama's supporters knew all along that they had to raise a large sum of money to be able to compete with Clinton. They knew all along that they would be the financial underdogs, so they gave small amounts repeatedly to try to keep up.

I didn't sense that kind of drive from the Clinton people. My mother, for example, is a big Clinton supporter and has only given to her campaign once or twice, and they've been after NH. Compare that to a typical Obama support who has probably given four or five times already.

by Kal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Probably the biggest Clinton campaign mistake (none / 0)

One of the problems, though -- is that "talent" signed long ago -- like early/mid 2007 ago.

Money isn't just a generic 'equalizer' -- it matter how one spends it.

One thing the Obama team did in early/mid-2007 is lock up an awful lot of the state level organizers and field operatives. Everyone (well - most everyone around here) knows the Penns and Axelrods -- but just as important are the guys and gals few of us have ever heard of. These are the hired guns that make ground games go - and across the entire nation, there are so many 'top' operatives in various states and regions.

There were actually stories from the press in the late spring and summer of 2007 that Team Obama was wasting a lot of money on staff it was then felt no one would need.

It's kind of like arriving late to a going out of business sale -- it doesn't matter that you can muster a huge budget to spend, you're SOL if the pickings are slim to spend it on.

Ad expenditures are only part of the equation - while it's true that some of the excitement and volunteer efforts definitely helped Obama in caucuses --- plenty of the credit for those caucus wins also belongs to trainers and field staff.

by zonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's surprising about all the money her campaign (none / 0)

... has spent is how weak her on-the-ground organizations have been. Obama's campaign has outworked the Clinton camp over and over, in state after state.

Who was minding the store? Who was making sure that she had the ground troops necessary to mount a sustained effort?

It seems people inside the campaign bought into Penn's vacuous "inevitable" strategy.

What a mistake.

by Bob Johnson on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST

Re: What's surprising about all the money her camp (none / 0)

Right - as I said above.

It's one thing to compare ad expenditures, but that only tells us half the story.

I bet an even bigger spread would be expenditures on local field staff.

Trainers for caucuses.

GOTV specialists.

Field operatives.

Money - and "burn" isn't only about ad buys. It's also not about the Axelrods and Penns... It's not even necessarily about the guys like Paul Tewes. It's starting with people like Emily Parcell - and even people below the level of an Emily Parcell.

What's more -- those local level operatives, especially the primo ones - there just aren't many to choose from. Obama and company deserve tons of credit for locking a lot of 'em up.

At this point - HRC can raise a ton of money - and maybe she can even equalize the ad buys.... but it's now impossible for her to equalize the field staff disparities... both in terms of numbers and quality.

by zonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

I guess some things don't change. Whoever has more money has an advantage. I'm not saying it's unfair. That's life.

It's the same reason that Republicans always used to outraise Democrats until their party screwed up so badly--the wealthy just have more to donate than the less wealthy. When you combine wealth with enthusiasm, the money pours in.

(Yes, I know Obama has a lot of small donors. But most of the money comes from bigger donors.)

by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

"(Yes, I know Obama has a lot of small donors. But most of the money comes from bigger donors.)"
i'd like your proof of this.

because each donor is limited to a max of $2,300, and Obama has said outright that he does not accept donations from lobbyists or PACs.

by fightinfilipino on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

Sure. Here's one set of data, from OpenSecrets:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donord ems.asp?cycle=2008

As of January 31, 2008, you'll see that 43% of Obama's money comes from folks who donated the maximum $2300, and 74% comes from people who've donated at least $200, a group numbering about 70,000 people.

I don't mean to imply Clinton is any less dependent on bigger donors--Clinton's numbers are more tilted percentage-wise toward bigger donors, mostly because she has more $2300 donors. Obama has quite a few more $200+ donors. (To me, $200 is a fair bit of money. Most folks earning $50,000 or so are unlikely to donate that to a campaign.)

I guess my point is that for all the talk of an army of small donors, a fairly big majority of the money comes from a relatively small number of people--70,000, even with the $2300 cap.

by OrangeFur on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

I know this is going to be taken as an attack, but this does reflect poorly on Clinton as a leader. She hired the people. She entrusted them to get the job done, and presumably okayed their strategies and budgets. She was the head of a campaign that wound up broke leading into the biggest contest of the entire primary season, despite starting with a huge war chest.

I think it is entirely reasonable to question her ability to manage, particularly as her campaign is pushing 'ready on day one' and 'solutions'. You can't claim competence when you aren't demonstrating it. Blame it all you want to on advisers, but as a manager at work, I don't get to pass off my failures to get a job done on poor performance of my employees. I am held responsible, and rightly so.

by tysonpublic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

no, you're right, it is certainly a reasonable question. her campaign has not been well managed. things seemed to have been planned around Clinton's supposed inevitability and took basically all of the "non major states" (read: large blue states) for granted.

for someone touting her "35 years of experience", it looks like her campaign is being run by a group of newbies.

by fightinfilipino on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Ended January in the Red (none / 0)

This is when it would be nice to hear from all those rabid HRC supporters that populate the other threads. What gives you so much confidence that she'll be such an amazing president (the "glory of America" or something) when she's run such a terrible campaign? Hell, what gives you so much confidence that she'll win the general? Hoping for more "McCain's sleeping with lobbyists" type bombshells is not really a strategy i can get behind.

by bg5000 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.