Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

Oddly enough (to me), it's fairly normal for Presidential campaigns to leave behind a string of debts - just ask Rudy Giuliani. But as this article points out, bills left unpaid usually tend to be those of "high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own".

Not so with Campaign Hillary. It has left bills unpaid all the way from Iowa -- to a long list of small businesses, for whom these forfeited payments are a big deal.

This is all the more striking because of how the fundraising in this Democratic race has been through the roof. Sure, Hillary is behind on Obama, but she herself has also raised amounts of money that were unheard of in previous years; she is still spending massive amounts of money. And it is striking in contrast with the lack of such a string of unpaid bills on the part of the Obama campaign and even the not too long ago almost bankrupt McCain campaign.

Quote:

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills

Why did Clinton wait to release her tax returns?

On Friday afternoon, Hillary Clinton finally released her and her husband's tax returns. (You can view them here -- if you find anything interesting, feel free to let me know [..].) And that prompts some inevitable questions: What took her campaign so long? Why allow yourself to be dogged by weeks of attacks from Barack Obama's campaign instead of just releasing the returns? Why take the traditional route of someone with bad news to deliver and release the returns on Friday afternoon? What could they have to hide?

The short answer is that, for the moment, we don't really know. That's the point of releasing the information the way the Clinton campaign did. If you're putting out a ton of information on a Friday afternoon, it's because you know that way reporters won't have a chance to filter out the chaff, and you hope that the story dies over the weekend and isn't picked up the following week. In this case, since the Clinton campaign had promised to release the returns around April 15th, and did it slightly earlier, I have to wonder if they saw an opportune moment in this particular weekend, as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, will be testifying before Congress next week. The Clinton camp is probably hoping that some media attention will shift to Iraq and away from the campaign, and they're probably right.

As of this posting, there has been some information gleaned already, mostly predictable and small if potentially damaging details. There is, for example, information about just how much money Bill Clinton has earned (at least $12 million and possibly as much as $15 million) in a partnership with close friend and billionaire Ron Burkle, who is practically a human minefield for the campaign. And there are some other connections -- both to sources of the Clintons' money, and to managers of it -- that could prove embarrassing.

There may well be a big bombshell waiting in the returns for some enterprising person to find. If there isn't, then here's my theory to explain the campaign's foot-dragging: Simply put, since they left the White House, the Clintons have made a lot of money. Between 2000 and 2007, they grossed a combined $109 million. And though they paid almost $34 million of that to Uncle Sam, and donated another $10 million to charity, that still leaves them a hefty chunk of change. This is, potentially, a political problem. Before he was elected president, and while he remained in the White House, Bill Clinton could tell voters he felt their pain. That particular line suddenly got a whole lot less believable. And this year, Hillary Clinton has relied on the support of voters who are typically lower on the socioeconomic scale than Obama supporters are. Her campaign has to be at least a little worried that the revelation of the Clintons' newfound wealth might hurt them among this key group.

That particular line suddenly got a whole lot less believable. And this year, Hillary Clinton has relied on the support of voters who are typically lower on the socioeconomic scale than Obama supporters are. Her campaign has to be at least a little worried that the revelation of the Clintons' newfound wealth might hurt them among this key group.

Colombia fires top Clinton strategist's firm
Firing comes after Mark Penn apologizes for meeting Colombian officials


WASHINGTON - The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn's public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.

Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm's chief executive, calling the meeting an "error in judgment." Clinton opposes the trade deal.

"The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable," government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador March 31.

Penn regretful
Clinton advisers said the meeting was not connected to the campaign, but made clear the candidate was not happy to learn it. Penn later issued a statement expressing regrets.

"The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it," he said. "The senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."

The Colombian government is trying to secure congressional passage of the agreement signed in 2006 by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Bush administration.

According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed last year to pay Burson-Marsteller $300,000 to help "educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences" about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.

Clinton and Barack Obama, her Democratic rival, oppose the deal. Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO this week that the United States needs new trade policies before it has new trade deals. "That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country," she said.

Penn's political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign.

Not that I mind at all seeing Penn embarrassed, but I never understood why Columbia not simply continue to use the CIA for all their public relations needs. Much cheaper.

January 6, 2008, 5:18 pm
Edwards: No Conscience in Clinton Campaign
By Julie Bosman

KEENE, N.H. - John Edwards angrily took on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at two news conferences in a row on Sunday, saying that her campaign "doesn't seem to have a conscience."

Mr. Edwards was responding to a comment from Jay Carson, Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, who suggested that "the references in Senator Clinton's speeches are about people she has actually helped and changes she has actually made, not stories she's pulled from the newspaper and included in her stump," Mr. Carson wrote in an E-mail message.
Mr. Carson's comment was in reference to an emotional town hall event Mr. Edwards held in Manchester early Sunday afternoon, featuring an appearance by the parents of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old leukemia patient who died in December after her insurance company denied her a liver transplant. Mr. Edwards had recently incorporated the story into his stump speech as a criticism of insurance companies.

My fellow Clintonites, it's time for Obama
By Tripp Jones
April 5, 2008

FOR SUPPORTERS of Senator Hillary Clinton, like me, it's time to get behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama.

more stories like thisThe exposure of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s outrageous and divisive remarks has injected the raw emotions associated with race relations into the presidential campaign. This new dynamic raises the stakes in an already high-stakes race. Our responsibility as progressive-minded voters is to show Americans a positive alternative to the toxic politics of race. Rallying around Obama now increases our chances of doing just that. Obama has run a positive and inspiring campaign, and has attracted a majority of pledged delegates. It is hard to envision a scenario in which Democratic superdelegates override the will of millions of primary voters and caucus participants. Obama will be the nominee.

Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding Wright presents Republicans with a polarizing wedge issue to exploit with general election voters. This approach not only risks an Obama loss in November - denying us a fresh, capable leader - but it would set the country back in its racial reconciliation process. Americain 2008 should be better than that.

As we have done at many key junctures in our nation's history, Democrats and other progressive-minded voters must lead the way. The current firestorm is an opportunity to move beyond the anger and resentment that have characterized our nation's dialogue on race. By throwing our enthusiastic support behind Obama now, voters of all political stripes can echo the candidate's refrain, "Not this time."

There have been many moments in our history when we failed to heed that call. Twenty years ago, as a staffer of Governor Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign, I observed the use of the now-famous "Willie Horton" ad to undermine a good man's character, fan the flames of racial division and distract voters from the most important issues of the time.

Not this time. We have an opportunity to show that we have learned from our mistakes. The first step, which Obama took in his recent speech on race, was to condemn Wright's offensive rhetoric.

The second step is in our hands: Strengthen Obama as the Democratic nominee by uniting behind him now. Amplify his postpartisan message to American voters. Families in Pennsylvania, like those across America, are feeling insecure about their jobs, healthcare, their children's education, and the safety of the nation. They want leaders to be bold and practical in addressing our most serious challenges, and to work across party lines to achieve results. Obama promises to do that.

Those of us who have supported Clinton and continue to believe that she would be an excellent president can play an important part in moving our nation forward by supporting Obama. We can spread the word that he offers the right leadership for these challenging times.

Our support would send a powerful message that the United States is headed in a new direction - on race relations, certainly, but perhaps most importantly, on what it means to be an American.

Updated 7:45 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
Mark J. Penn quit his role as chief strategist for the Clinton campaign on Sunday after months of dissatisfaction with his performance and a recent conflict of interest involving his corporate work. Although rumors of his firing had circulated for months, it was another stunning upheaval in a struggling campaign that has already had one staff shakeup.

The immediate trigger for Penn's departure was a meeting he held last week with the Colombian ambassador to the United States to advocate for a free trade agreement that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes. Penn held the meeting in his capacity as chief executive officer for the public relations giant Burson-Marsteller -- and it underscored the tricky nature of his effort to play both corporate executive and a political adviser over the last year.

Clinton Press Release: Statement From Campaign Manager On Resignation Of Mark Penn
April 6, 2008
[Clinton Campaign Press Release from April 6, 2008]


Statement from Maggie Williams

After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.

Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.

ironyroad said:

Joking apart, there is a real issue here that Clinton was once much more in control of. The serious possibility of the first female president taking office was always going to trigger deep-seated confusions and insecurities in both sexes about leadership, political dynamics, national identities, and the oddly intimate and at the same time distant relationship between Americans and the presidency.

Clinton knew, I believe, that she would have to walk that unfair but persistently present line that women in public life have to walk, between being recognizably feminine and empathetic and being politically competent and willing to do what it takes to win. The danger was not so much that she was going to morph into a Segolene Royale or (the other extreme) a Margaret Thatcher, but more that she might end up lurching from one emphasis to another, appearing to be too soft at one moment and too Machiavellian at the other.

It was and is exploring virgin territory, so to speak, as nobody knew how Americans in general would respond to a real prospect of a woman as president. And we still are mostly speculating.

Despite all the unknowns, she handled it all very well, and she even managed to chide the all-male-plus-Hillary line-up at the debates without getting the tone wrong. Then, however, after Super Tuesday something got out of kilter and she appeared to want to tap into a kind of resentment vote that would be less for her than against Obama's relative youth and confident male charm. She has mined this lode ever since, and I believe it accounts, at least in part, for her declining authority and weakening grip on events.

Wandreycer1 said:

[..] I can't justify Hillary's hiding her personality defects and thuggish behavior behind the real problem of sexism. Her exploitation of it has often angered me to no end. The Gloria Steinem phase of all this was especially gross, deeply embarassing to me as a woman. As ejbenjamin put it so well, yep - there is sexism in the world and Hillary has been dealing with very little of it in this campaign. She's among the most privledged candidates to ever run.

[..] Hillary made a bad bet taking the easy way out by blaming sexism for her poor performance - it narrowed her base to one or two demographics and destroyed any over-arching theme to her candidacy. [..]

blackton said:

I wish more focus would be on Women at the lower end of the economic totem pole then the ones on the top. I have some sympathy, but not much, for women earning $150,000 a year who don't make Senior partner at the same rate as men, but far more sympathy for women making $7.50 an hour at a local supermarket. Hillary is worth 100 million, is a sitting Senator and former first Lady, instead of whining how unfair life has been to her, maybe she should spend more time fighting for these low income women (and the children).

Hell, lets not forget that she tried to bully everyone else out of the race by her campaigns incessant talk about her inevitability early on, using that line to bully many politicos early on into endorsing her.

At this point, whenever I see her on TV [..] I just turn her off because I know she is going to say something that will set my teeth on edge.

ironyroad said:

Yes. Well, sometimes my kid sister used to get her way regarding the TV channel by claiming to my mom that I or my brother or both of us had bullied her. She gave that up around the age of nine or so.

ejbenjamin said:

Bill Maher once said that being an adult means you understand both that the LA Police are racists but also that OJ did it nonetheless.

ChanRobt said:

f we must go on about sexism, Ed Muskie was laughed out of his presidential bid when he teared up when talking about unfair press attacks on his wife. [Yet] Hillary sits there and cries because "campaigning is hard". [..]

And don't tell me that Ed Muskie was 36 years ago and we're not like that anymore. If Obama had cried publicly over the difficulty of running for the nomination, do you think we would have yet heard the end of it? I think it would have ended his candidacy. [..]

guyminuslife said:

Those people on Facebook (and I know them very, very, well) are not political, they are not the type to think things out, they are mindless cultural consumers whose common denominator is irreverence for the sake of irreverence. There's plenty to read into this, but the obvious critique is not the correct one. This isn't about sexism, it's about memetics and lack of social ideology.

mcdoniel said:

Why is there no acknowledgment in the article or in this post that the vast majority of the members of that Facebook group are only in it because they think that it's funny? This is the same demographic that watches South Park and Family Guy - they find humor in stereotypes all the time, and often in ones directed against groups that they themselves are part of. It's a joke; very few of them think that women should not be outside of the kitchen [..].

Sun Apr 6, 6:36 PM ET



The Nation -- After months of criticism and allegations of conflicts of interest swirling around Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's "chief strategist," the Clinton Campaign announced on Sunday that Penn is losing his title. A terse statement from campaign manager Maggie Williams says:

ADVERTISEMENT

After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign. Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.

Garin officially began polling for the campaign last month, a major sign that senior Clinton aides doubted not only Penn's judgment, but also his numbers. This announcement aims to reduce Penn's visibility, but obviously he will continue his high-paying job providing "polling and advice" to Sen. Clinton. Tweaking titles does nothing to address the serious questions about Penn's potential conflicts of interest, which The Nation's Ari Berman began reporting as far back as last May.

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton's claim was false.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Demoted Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn may no longer have the coveted title of chief strategist, but he remains a key member of the campaign's senior staff. Indeed, it is not clear precisely what Mr. Penn's demotion entails, other than a public rebuke."

"Mr. Penn took part on the campaign's morning message call this morning, as usual. This afternoon, he is also scheduled to be on a call with Clinton and other aides to begin to prepare for Saturday's presidential debate in Philadelphia. Mr. Penn 'is still going to be very much involved,' a senior campaign official said."