Letters to the Editor
-
David Axelrod works for free
So "little guy" donations to Obama go for feeding the homeless, since David Axelrod doesn't get paid?
He shouldn't, since he's merely Xeroxing the "hope and change" campaign he ran for Deval Patrick, but something tells me he'll probably exiting the unsuccessful Obama campaign come November with a few million of his own.
-
@lolcait
You should actually read the whole article before writing posts. David Axelrod was mentioned. Nice try though.
-
God damn..
I'm in the wrong f*cking line of work, that's for sure.
-
Hillary
Who cares how much Hillary pays her staff. Is this the best you can do? You sure can't criticize her on the issues, especially universal healthcare. One more thing, please tell Keith Olbermann that Hillary is NOT dropping out.
-
interesting comparison ...
Clinton paid Penn a total of $8.9 million for direct mail, according to CQ MoneyLine. She paid Penn for polling, at $2.8 million. She even paid Penn $160,000 for consulting about polling, which presumably involved his telling her what an excellent pollster she'd hired. By Feb. 29, she also owed Penn's firm another $2.5 million for "consulting/polling," federal records show.
... versus ...
Penn's counterpart as chief strategist on Barack Obama's campaign, David Axelrod, has seen at least $1.2 million paid to his Chicago-based firm, where David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, was a partner until he left to go work for the campaign. (Plouffe makes $12,000 a month in salary.) Obama has paid his chief pollster, Joel Benenson, $635,000 so far.
Hillary was touted as "the presumptive Democratic nominee" just a few months ago. The nomination was hers to lose. And with Penn's help, she did.
Looks like Obama gets a better deal for less money. Yet another point in his favor.
-
So if it is all crony capitalism before they are elected ...
What do we think they will do when they are elected?
-
$$$$$$$$$$
Expensive spin factoring insider politics and influence peddling at its ultimate ugliest.
-
Good question
But what are they getting for their money?
The right ad, of course — though that really doesn't explain some of the trash that goes out there, easily inferior to the kinds of things that MoveOn volunteers or YouTube hipsters put together in their spare time.
Okay, so maybe what they're getting is the sound advice that only a seasoned, experienced professional can provide? Except consider Shrum, whose "help" losing campaigns from Gephardt to Gore didn't seem to have stopped Kerry from listening to him, too. So that can't be it, either.
One thing that's striking about Madden's account is that, back of the envelope, Obama is apparently spending something like 1/6 of what Clinton is spending on top tier campaign advisers.
So whatever the candidates aren't getting from their overpaid advisers, Obama is failing to get more for his money than Clinton. Given where she stands in the race, yeah, I'd be ditching my guy, too.
-
Who cares how much Hillary pays her staff? I Do.
A core competency of any executive is the ability to identify and retain talent and make sure they deliver value for money spent.
It would be great (if wonky) to be able to see the internal financials for all the campaigns. The jury is still out, but it looks like Alexrod is a better deal than Penn.
-
The article is far more balanced than the headline
It's nice to see some actual reporting for a change, and a relatively even-handed approach (the facts make the case that Clinton has spent far more wildly and Obama has both controlled costs and gotten better value for his contributors' money). And the article is timely with Mark Penn's resignation.
I'd love to see a chart showing the amount spent by Bill Clinton in 1992 on the same services Hillary is buying now. In 1992, their staff was largely unknowns seeking their way in the world, attached to a candidate given little chance (and even less after Iowa). Now, those same people or their successors from 1996 (and 2000 and 2006) are used to first-class operations and featherbedding, and they're charging Hillary accordingly.
The real question is why we all continue to drink the Kool-Aid on campaign appeals where the money is spent like this.
-
Corruption By Any Other Name Is Still Corruption
Highly educated, high-minded liberals sneer at the complaints of true conservatives and libertarians regarding Big Government.
I myself see the anti-Big Government rants as somewhat antiquated in the modern world. It's just a fact of modern life that the national government apparatus must be large, must be the 400-pound gorilla, to provide a supposed counter-force to the power private (economic) entities can command.
But it also produces what we--regardless of whom we support in the presidential race--are witnessing in this specific Penn case, but also in the general dynamic of presidential campaigns in this era.
Corruption is corruption, whether its McCain's campaign being run by "volunteers" who are actually paid lobbyists in real life whose primary job is grabbing a piece of the federal govt.'s money or Penn's role as Chief Strategist to HRC while simultaneously representing (in his "private" employment) entities also seeking to suck at the public teat.
The fact is, the federal govt. has become the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for a significant percentage of private business enterprises and foreign governments that makes it virtually impossible for anyone other than perhaps Moses, Jesus or Mohammed to resist the temptation of being an influence peddler---look at Bill Clinton's, Dole's, Howard Baker's post-government service, for examples.
Abraham Lincoln told the story about a railroad representative who came to his office when he was a state legislator in Illinois. There was a bill pending that would, if passed, have been a windfall for the railroad.
The railroad guy told Lincoln that he knew State Reps. didn't make much money, so, for his Yes vote, the railroad would quietly pass Ole Abe 5000 shares of its stock. Lincoln sat stone-faced, saying not a word.
Of course, said the railroad rep, we could also add a generous contribution of $10,000, which we would deposit discreetly into a bank account of your choice. Lincoln sat stone-faced, saying not a word.
We also maintain an account in Switzerland, said the railroad guy; that account accepts only deposits in gold. We easily could add a $20,000 deposit there, on top of what I already mentioned.
At that point, Lincoln stood up from behind his desk, walked around it to where the railroad guy sat, grabbed the guy by the scruff of his neck and the belt of his pants, and physically threw him out of his office.
When he told the story, most people asked, Why did you pick that particular moment to throw him out?
And Lincoln answered: "Because he was getting too close to my price."
Today, there's just sooooo much $ at stake, maybe even Lincoln would have a Mark Penn running his campaign.