Rendell Thinks Obama Should Help Hillary Retire Campaign Debt
By Don | June 26, 2008
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) explains why Barack Obama should help Hillary Clinton retire her campaign debt.
From ABC News' Jake Tapper's blog.
Recalling two elections he lost in his career, Rendell recalls, "Gosh, when people saw me coming they crossed over to the other side of the street. It isn't so easy to raise the money when you've lost."
But, Rendell said, "if you're the winner, if you're the nominee, people are very much inclined to help Hillary Clinton, or whoever your opponent was, because you're asking, because the winner has a tremendous amount of leverage."
Late this afternoon Obama acknowledged what ABC News was first to report last night, that yesterday on a conference call "what I said was to my large donors, who are in a position to write large checks, to help Senator Clinton retire her debt, or at least a portion of it. And I think there are going to be those who are willing to do so."
But the Clinton team is looking at more than $10 million in debt -- not to mention her personal $11.5 million loan to her campaign. So the following remarks were assuredly irksome to many former Clinton officials.
"We don’t have some ten-point strategy to do this," Obama said. "Small donors who are writing $5 or $10 or $15, $25 checks – first of all, their budgets are tighter. And, they know that I am going to be working with Senator Clinton. If they want to make contributions than I think there’s nothing wrong with them doing so. And I want to encourage that. But ...I’m not going to be individually contacting $15 donors, because frankly it probably wouldn’t be that effective in terms of making a big dent in Senator Clinton’s debt."
So he won't send out an email to his grassroots network of 1.5 million supporters, who have so far enabled him to raise upwards of $260 million.
No doubt they ain't happy about that in Hillaryland.
The Clinton's are smart. They know that in order for Obama to win he needs to get Hillary on board and get her currently disaffected followers to vote for him in November. Yet the manner in which he has handled this matter so far reveals that there is still a very large rift between them and the best he can hope for is an uneasy alliance.
5 Comments | Post a Comment
Historically, the winner has always helped the loser come to terms with their debt. Historically, that debt has never been very much, a couple hundred thousand at best. About 1/100th of what the winner is usually going to bring in, not 1/10th.
I personally suggest that PUMA take care of the debt. After all, with 18 million members, at $1 per member, that would kill off that debt in an instant.
If they really need to support Hillary, why do it in public?
It humiliates Hillary so much.
It gives a wrong impression to the People that Hillary is under debt to Obama and may not really be trully supportive of his Campaign.
TEACH OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS SOME MANNER. Be modest in helping people in need and don’t use that to serve your own interests.
When Obama announced that his supporters should help address the debts of Hillary, he has become that haughty man in the Bible wanting public acknowledgement of his offerings to God.
To follow up on the first comment made here, yes, this is typical liberal behavior and mentality. Incur large debts due to mismanagement of the campaign or poor planning or foresight, and then just ask someone else to bail them out. Even if I were a supporter, which I could never be, obviously, that would turn me off right there. With economic conditions and energy prices what they are, imagine the nerve they have asking for more donations to pay off debts! It’s total (and typical) liberal irresponsibility, arrogance and condescension, as I see it.
I personally suggest that PUMA take care of the debt. After all, with 18 million members, at $1 per member, that would kill off that debt in an instant.
June 26 at 7:21 am | #1 | Link
Somehow Rendell calling for Obama to help Clinton retire her campaign debt just highlights the entire problem of the Democratic party—run-up huge bills and then foist the responsibility to repay them onto someone else. Running for President is neither inexpensive nor easy, and she knew that from the start; why should Obama (or anyone, for that matter) be compelled to bail her out? It just doesn’t make sense to me.