Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Reports suggest that the Clintons are at least thinking about committing millions of their own money to Hillary's race.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • They aren't that rich.

    And even if they were, I don't think they want to enter Mitt Romney territory here.

  • Wow that is twisted

    Hill camp trying to trick voters into believing the ultimate insider, her, is the outsider.

    We are getting exactly what we deserve as a society.

    These clowns would not pass muster elsewhere, but in the USA they are allowed to play pretend mindfuck in this way.

    Has nobody in this country got any shame? Where are the outraged voters who should not be tolerating such bald displays of moral filth?

    This crap is deranged. No wonder this society is so screwed up.

  • Sorry

    the last post was meant for Team Clinton

  • Clintons pulling a Romney?

    Almost like the lack of enthusiasm Clinton's campaign has generated among a majority of voters is costing her. But if they're willing to pull a Romney and invest some of their many millions into their own race, why not? It's worked so well for Romney, after all. But have they already shaken down their big-ticket contributors as much as they can? Maybe that's why she's been so opposed to campaign finance reform -- I mean, there are real limits to the amounts that can be donated, which would hobble a campaign that's depending on a small pool of big donors, versus a campaign that's relying on lots of little donors, as Obama's is. Very interesting situation.

  • Confirmed

    A few news outlets are now reporting that Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million last month. That's not good news for February in which she has already made a big spend for 2/5

  • Already Did

    Ben Stein has already reported today the official response that Hillary donated $5 million to her own campaign *last month*.

  • It Ended

    Last night in California.

  • What would it mean?

    Would it look desperate, or could they spin the "loan" to look like they're "sacrificing" for the cause? The usual "A Candidate Who Can't be Bought" of self-financed campaigns doesn't seem to fit.

    I think they've been pretty honest about the money they have and how they've gotten it, except for that thing about "that's Chelsea's college money" and Hillary's commodities trading back in Arkansas. I think Bill has been pretty clear he has made boatloads since leaving the presidency.

    Wouldn't you spend the big bucks if you had it, and were running for President? Even as an investment it makes sense--the presidency, or just nomination, basically sets you up for a corporate gravy train eventually. Look at both Hillary and Bill on that one.

    Beats trading in cattle futures, I'd think.

  • So, Bill has made tens of millions...

    ...just on speaking fees and corporate board compensation? Tens of millions of dollars? Even he is not worth it.

  • a year of record democractic turnout...

    ...and Hillary the Inevitable can't raise enough cash? then she really IS lucky super tuesday came not a week later.

    if anyone is doubting why this primary battle is so exciting, why so many new voters and independents are voting in the democratic race, i think we have our answer, and his name is barack obama.

  • Financially Obama

    Is really acheiving nothing different than you will find in an average church. Standing at the pulpit spewing feel-good nonsense that cannot withstand even minimum scrutiny. The rabble with mouths agape and they pass the bucket around.

  • Bill made over 40 million in speaking fees

    According to a 2/23/07 story in the Washington Post, Bill Clinton made over 40 million in the previous six years. $150K isn't unusual for one of his speeches, but he's been paid more.

    Obviously, those who pay are big corporate entities, and the money (from those previous speeches) does not have to be reported as campaign donations.

    It's crooked, but it's legal.

  • Oh, I Get It

    Obama's Campaign is the "Establishment" candidate, because it isn't broke.

    Now, I understand the Clinton Spin Machine.

  • Sounds like Despairation

    Are they unravelling? Calling Obama the establishment candidate when they have all the superdelegates stockpiled is insane.

    Why isn't anyone answering--or speculating on--the real momentum question: Who received more votes cast on February 5th. Didn't the Clinton camp claim to have large numbers of early votes cast weeks ago?

    I think they know who really has momentum, and they can see it building.

  • "Arab corporations fund Clintons campaign" I can see it now!

    Some of Bill's biggest speaking fees ($300K+ for a single speech) were paid by companies based in the United Arab Emirates.

    Talk about opening yourself up to Republican attacks.

  • bocdoc

    It ended last night in California. Form here on in it's a matter of getting Obama to V.P.

  • No Way

    You are kidding yourself if you think it ended last night in California. California is important,but not that important

  • Speaking fees are crooked?

    Really? I guess it makes sense, considering that St. Obama would certainly speak for free, right?

  • Obama as Hillary's V.P. candidate?

    What a great idea! They could use an Establishment figure on the ticket!

  • She's Done, She's Through, She's Broke, She's Finished

    And she's going to be the next president.

  • Does Salon get some kind of perverse pleasure...

    ...in publishing the most unflattering photos of Hillary Clinton it can dig up? (Slate is equally guilty of this.) Every photo published of her in the last two days has caught her at a moment that makes her look like some kind of nutjob.

    (And as a non-American who'd vote for Obama if I was able to because I think Hillary is too hawkish and too 'establishment', this is no partisan accusation by some Hillbot.)

    Your readers aren't stupid. Photo choices are editorial choices.

  • Not That Big of a Deal

    Hillary loaning her campaign money is not necessarily that big of a deal. As I recall, she designated a lot of her past money for the general election. Obama did not, which means that if Hillary is the nominee she will have a larger pile of money than Obama in November when it really counts. That's just smart politics.

  • @Anonymous

    There are no flattering pictures of Hillary Clinton.

  • So, how much does a delegate cost?

    Hopefully, she can get a better deal than Mitt. He's really getting fleeced.

  • Obama Supporters

    Long stem roses are the way to your heart,

    But he needs to start with your head.

    Satin sheets are very romantic,

    But what happens when you're not in bed?

    Don't go for second best baby.

    Put your man to the test.

    You know, you know, you got to

    Take a look at how Hillary feels

    And maybe then you'll find what's real.

  • @ironcrat Nice work if you can get it

    If a candidate spends millions of their own money on their campaign, it is of course relevant to ask where that money came from, who paid it, and the agendas of those who gave it to the candidates. The same would apply to the Obamas, but they're not the ones forking out the cash.

    Of course it's crooked. A big corporation (in the US, Dubai, Hong Kong, wherever) gives hundreds of thousands for an hour speech, and then Bill and Hillary turn around and spend that money on their campaign outside of the limits on corporate contributions and outright ban on foreign contributions.

    Hey, don't get me wrong, nice work if you can get it. But it's hardly ethical.

    Of course, the Clintons are the friends of the "little guy." Hilarious.