Ickes: It's all about the $$$?

There seems to be some interesting things that took place on a conference call of major Clinton donors.

On a conference call late this afternoon with about 30 top donors, senior advisor Harold Ickes conceded that the likelihood of Clinton securing the nomination was growing more remote. But he emphatically argued to donors that the end was not here yet and that they should continue to support the Senator until she says to do otherwise.

Ok, fair enough.  The amount of debt her campaign has racked up is in dispute- at minimum $20 million, but figures as high as $40 million have been reported. Telling the donors to stop ensures she's completely on the hook for it, and that's no good.

But for of Sunday's kerfluffle, what this?

Ickes said Clinton most likely would not appeal a ruling by the Democratic Party rules committee seating the delegation from a disputed primary in Michigan, according to a participant who described the call on condition of anonymity.

Hmm.  I thought this was a fight for voters?  I thought this was about feminism?

Nope- one reliable source says that it's about something a bit simpler:

In a conference call with major donors this afternoon, contributors were told by Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, that she was unlikely to pull out of the race until the issue of her massive debts was resolved. The New York senator has lent her own campaign at least $11.5 million.

One source close to a major donor said: "It's not about the vice-presidency or any other position she might get. It's about the money - in particular the Clinton family money."

No smart remarks about this being in a UK paper- the author's credentials are impeccable.

Now, laws prohibit one penny of Obama money going to Clinton.  But is he going to work something out in order to secure the nomination for sure?

Debate away, but we'll find out soon enough.

That seems a little cynical.



Display:


Ickes isn't appealing cuz he's a sexist (none / 0)



"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:22:13 AM EST

boop. (none / 0)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:24:16 AM EST

Anyone who ever thought (none / 0)

that the FL/MI fight was "about the voters" is naive.


_____________
changiness
by lizardbox on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST

This has been an issue (none / 0)

This has been an issue for a while. There was talk a few weeks ago about Obama helping Clinton pay down her debts. It seemed a bit preposterous but the pushback from the Clintons was underwhelming. Maybe this is all about the money at this point.

Is it possible to ask donors to retire your debt, knowing that your campaign is done? Is that how things go?


by elrod on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:31:38 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

from my perspective - I don't think it's about money - i understand that $40 million is alot...not sure what he's asking her contributors to do? but...in the scheme of things....it's a drop in the bucket to what the clintons make.

bill can make 10 speeches and collect $10million at least.

either one could write a book and make all of it back in a nano-second...

so....

I understand that they probably don't want to flush it all down the toilet - but I don't think it's about $$$$....


by nikkid on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:07 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

If Clinton does not win the nomination, she can simply transfer any debt to her Senate campaign. The idea that she needs Obama to bail her out is interesting though. This idea that gets floated around must be from GOP trolls who are just trying to irritate Hillary supporters so they will be turned off by Obama. It's an effective strategy.


by grlpatriot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:59 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

It isn't a troll idea. It's been floated in the mainstream media quite a bit. How does transferring her debt to her Senate campaign help? She owes money to herself already.


by elrod on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

Most of her donors are already maxed out... by transferring to her Senate campaign, they can fill the coffers again...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

Tripe and nonsense. Obama supporters dream up the most spurious crapola and project it onto those they wish to harm. In this case, their fellow Democrats who disagree with them about who the best candidate is. The "Politics of Hope" is the darkest, most pathological mass delusion I have ever witnessed.


by 07rescue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:40:55 AM EST

This isn't made up (none / 0)

Sorry to break it to you but she's in a lot of debt. That's no secret. And there have been stories for weeks about deals to pay down her debt.


by elrod on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (2.00 / 1)

Obama supporters dreamed this up? The guy that's writing this was actually imprisoned in - guess where? - Zimbabwe for being a member of the press. I think he has just a touch more credibility than you.


by upstate girl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

An anonymous "source close to a major donor?" "The Obama campaign might have to reach deeply into its well-stocked coffers?"

The guy may have courage, but he doesn't have much credibility in his reporting on American elections. It's not even legal for Obama to retire Clinton's debt from his "coffers". And anonymous sources twice removed are a stretch even for the NY Times.


by souvarine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

He IS wrong about that, but he's based in DC and is an American, so he's more than qualified for American election reporting.  Still, right now it does look flimsy, and I'd like to see more backup


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

Ickes isn't an Obama supporter, you'll recall.

At what point is it ok to admit that everything is NOT hunky dory and ok with the Clinton campaign?  Sometimes I read these things and it reads like someone sitting outside during a Cat5 hurricane screaming "it's ok!  It's all ok!" as the buildings fall around them.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:57:57 AM EST

DIVIDE & CONQUER! (none / 0)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:10:43 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

It certainly seems plausible that the Clinton campaign would hold a conference call with donors to let them know that she has no real shot, is not going to appeal the RBC's decision, but is hoping for people to send her a ton of money.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:03:44 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

Clearing up a misconception by a previous poster, Hillary cannot transfer ALL her debt to her Senate campaign. Personal loans that she made to the campaign are non-refundable if not repaid by the time a nominee is announced (and the race is obviously over).

Overlooked point is that Hillary has almost $24 million in her general election account. This account can be transferred to the DNC for use in the general election. The only other option is to return it. (One caveat: maxed out donors to the DNC @ $28,500 must get refunds to avoid going over the limit). In essence, this $24 million would be a de facto transfer to Obama. Obama can, in turn, start a separate fund to repay Clinton campaign debts or pay her debts directly out of his primary funds. In essence he loses nothing by doing this as the DNC is getting the $24 million. The is a certain amount of financial coordination allowed between the party and the candidate. I'm not sure of the amount but I know it is substantial.


by STUBALL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:56:10 AM EST

Re: Ickes: It's all about the $$$? (none / 0)

Correction: Obama cannot transfer money from his campaign fund to hers. Well, as a political entity, the campaign could donate up to $2,000, but that's a few zeros shy of what she'd need.


by nathanp on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:16:20 AM 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.