Edwards Adviser Trippi: Hillary Campaign Is Broke
Edwards senior adviser Joe Trippi has a theory about the Clinton campaign: He says that it's broke, or will be soon enough.
"There's a good chance that they're on the ropes financially," Trippi argued in an interview by cell phone from New Hampshire. "I can guarantee you their money is drying up. I don't think anyone is contributing to them."
Trippi was giving voice to a theory that's been moving around in political circles of late -- that the Hillary campaign's massive spending over the past couple months, combined with the fundraising slowdown that will inevitably attend Obama's victory over her in Iowa and possibly in New Hampshire, will ultimately leave the Hillary camp without the resources it needs to keep up its spending levels through the later primaries, as it needs to do.
The Hillary campaign had $35 million in cash on hand for the primary as of mid-October. There's no way of knowing for sure how much she's spent -- or raised -- since then until the next filing comes out.
Trippi -- who knows something about frontrunner campaigns petering out from his experiences with the Dean campaign in 2004 -- theorizes that Hillary's current level of spending will prove impossible to sustain for as long as she needs to sustain it, particularly since Obama's victory in Iowa and possible win in New Hampshire could unleash a flood of contributions for his campaign. It's unusual for senior campaign operatives to speculate about rival campaigns in such process-y detail.
"They're spending 20 million a month," Trippi said. "She had 400 organizers in Iowa, spent seven million on TV, had massive phone-banking and direct mail...I don't know how much longer they can go on [at this rate]."
Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson dismissed Trippi's speculation.
"I like Joe, but he should probably spend more time worrying about his own campaign," he told us. "Our resources are considerable and our organization is strong throughout the nation."
Anyway, take it for what it's worth. More from the Trippi interview a bit later.
Comments (83)
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 11:51 AM:Clearly in the mold of his make this a 2 man race and get rid of Hillary strategy. Edwards was different, I'm losing faith, still perplexed by how people see vast differences in the 2 standard corporate Democratic front-runners, Obama and Clinton. The only difference is she went a little to the left in the primary campaign and he a little to the right. They both have the same moneyed interests and are reaping it in almost equally, that will change too, Obama is about to surge ahead in the special interest fund raising, he's on fire and the Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House, the left? Duped again.
Ava wrote on January 7, 2008 11:53 AM:I don’t know if this is true, but The Drudge Report is saying that, facing a big loss in NH, Hillary may drop out soon. Hillary’s team does love tipping off Drudge. Here’s the report…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm
Hillary is in big trouble. She's got no money and she's losing support. She's going to lose NH. It's inevitable now. The only question is by how much and if John can overtake her. I think he will and then she'll be done for good.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 11:59 AM:Ava there could be some inside knowledge of superdelegates dropping her too as they did with Dean leading to the Clinton decision, if they know that, they will be far more embarassed later than now and are responding appropriately, a drop out will not surprise me at all. Republicans wanted Kerry, Republicans want Obama, Republicans win elections, Democrats fall for it everytime. Too bad the left was so duped and so heavily they gave up on their only chance who could be too damaged now to come back, Edwards.
Now, go at it calling me a Hillary troll because I have drunk the Kool-Aid and don't pray to the alter of the second coming, Obama and believe that his media free ride will continue and that all of America has been waiting to join in an Obama lovefest that will save the world. He is a corporate, special interest Democrat in the mold of Clinton who talks great talk and has nothing to show, dirty laundry to come, oh boy.
John McCutchen wrote on January 7, 2008 12:06 PM:I haven't seen a collapse like this since maybe Ed Muskie bawling in the snows of New Hampshire..
Bill Clinton's apology for his wife's age, height and gender beats em all
She's toast. It is all over for Hillary. THose folks on Bill's rolodex that fueled her campaign with money and surrogate appearances and super delegates weren't in it out of love for Bill's wife
Thing to watch...the donors and the SuperDelegates.
Glad I am a CA Precinct Capt for Obama
I have some fun work to do over the next month and am off to early vote shortly
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 12:08 PM:What is Sen Edwards' game here? He is rather obviously lending Sen Obama every assistance he can offer in defeating Sen Clinton. Does he think that he is the candidate best positioned to pick up her leavings (given the deep-seated antipathy which the Taylor Marsh wing of the Clinton campaign bears towards Obama) if she withdraws from the race soon? Or does he simply think that the nomination is essentially Obama's and he is just angling for the VP slot on the ticket?
zmulls wrote on January 7, 2008 12:15 PM:I'm a little confused by Edwards' strategy as well. Or was.
After Obama's big showing, and Edwards' clinging to second, it seemed to me that Obama was cresting and was due for a comedown as the weeks went on. And he and Obama were both trying for the "change" and "anti-Hillary" votes. I figured he'd join Hillary in neutralizing Obama, and make it him versus Clinton eventually.
But instead he figured he could get rid of Clinton and make it him versus Obama. Maybe he was smarter than I thought, because Obama doesn't look like his fade -- if it comes -- is coming anytime soon. And Clinton is suddenly very vulnerable.
I guess Edwards is counting on coming in second in NH, second in SC, and winning a handful on Feb 5 to stay in it.....and crossing his fingers that Clinton loses enough on Feb 5 that she can't go on.....
AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on January 7, 2008 12:28 PM:Trippi is on to something. I think most early Obama supporters like me and my husband are ready to donate again. Our modest donations mean we won't max will be around until November. Iremain stunned by what a Paper Toger the vaunted Clinton machine is turning out to be.
brm wrote on January 7, 2008 12:29 PM:The DLC princess is going to get trounced
Celebrate the end of the Bush-Clinton era of politics.
The debate performance just killed her in NH. I know all the Clintonites scoffed at Luntz's focus group. But that is exactly what NH voters think of her.
Another reason is her AUMF vote. In the beginning of the campaign, she took a question on that from a NH voter, and dismissed the questioner, by saying if you dont like my vote on the AUMF, vote for someone else.
We heard you Hillary and we are going to do that tomorrow in record numbers
eric wrote on January 7, 2008 12:29 PM:I think that Edwards strategy - and I will concede it is a long shot - is to keep himself in this race by finishing ahead of Hillary until there is some serious polling on a head-to-head match ups between Obama and the republicans. That polling with show, I believe, some serious questions about Obama's electibility. The panic that ensues will benefit Edwards because he will likely fare much better in these polls. Right now, though, he just needs to be second.
Edwards doesn't have a chance to beat Obama unless something major happens, and I think that poor polling by Obama v. the republicans is about all there is.
progressivedem wrote on January 7, 2008 12:30 PM:The idea that Edward is angling for a VP slot with Obama strikes me as farfetched. He has always been and continues to run for the presidency. He was a VP candidate in one failing campaign (that of John Kerry) already and I can't see him wanting to go through that again. I agree with others who suspect that Obama will have a much tougher time in the general election than many of his supporters can ever imagine or want to admit to themselves. We have seen that he is a superb speaker and can move people with broad themes, but generally doesn't debate as effectively as Edwards (who also has considerable gifts as a public speaker). I like Obama and the "idea" of his candidacy, but I believe Edwards is the guy who can deliver the most progressive policies and can best go head to head with the Republican attack machine that will inevitably hit the democratic candidate.
On the Clock wrote on January 7, 2008 12:30 PM:Two second-place finishes for Edwards sets up a moderate v. progressive showdown on Feb. 5. That's his only hope.
Edwards had to win two rhetorical battles. The first was against the "status quo" (for which he claimed victory after Iowa in tandem with Obama), and the "progressive" vs. "conservative" battle he hopes will pan out between him and BHO after NH.
If Hillary finishes third tomorrow, Edwards will get his shot.
Ava wrote on January 7, 2008 12:32 PM:Anonymous - - I don't think republicans want Obama. They want Hillary, so that they can unload two decades worth of dirt about them and put the nation through the 1992 election X4 - bimbo eruptions, shady deals, pardons, etc. Hillary is taking credit for everything she thinks was good about the Clintons and the republicans will make her take credit for everything that was bad about their time in the White House as well. Not to mention the fact that her nomination will galvanize republicans to come out to vote against her like nothing else will, and 50% of the country has said they won’t vote for her under ANY circumstances, which means she’ll already be playing on a really short field. The best she can hope for in the general is to eek out a slim victory, but under those circumstances it’s very likely she would lose.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Obama to lose, but I think they’ll certainly have a harder time with him. In IA, he beat Hillary amongst democrats and in all other demographics except women over 65. Independents and young voters love him, and he’s got the African American vote across the country. That’s a powerful alliance of several voting blocks that are much larger than the group of registered republican voters. There is huge excitement behind Obama’s candidacy that Hillary can’t match.
Republicans would much rather run against Hillary than Obama.
The idea that Edward is angling for a VP slot with Obama strikes me as farfetched.
To be very clear, I agree with this. If Sen Edwards really were trying for a spot on Sen Obama's ticket, it seems to me that cutting an ad saying that Obama cannot deliver but I (i.e. Edwards) can is a darn funny way to go about it. That said, my other hypothesis does not strike me as especially more plausible. That is why I asked the question - what is going on? I am hoping that someone else has a better guess than I have been able to come up with, because I find the whole thing so very curious. Pleasantly so, of coure, but curious nonetheless.
JEP wrote on January 7, 2008 12:41 PM:Hillary's one claim has been her consensus national poll numbers, which are bound to topple along with her local numbers... now she knows she can't trust her own managers' numbers because they have obviously been polling selectively to cook their books.
That's what you get for making a pollster the manager...
As for Edwards and his second place showing, second place matters in the decathalon, and the final outcome has been tossed up for grabs, no one remains "presumptive" in either party, and no clear-cut front-runner has been certified. Quite the contrary. The "presumptive candidates", Hillary and Giulliani, are both reeling from recent KO's, and the field has opened up, with Obama and Huckabee suddenly in the spotlight. And Obama's advantage over Hillary seems to be growing in New Hampshire, as does Ewards'.
If there IS still a game afoot, Edwards may yet become the nominee, as more voters drop off the Clinton recycle machine and realign with their choice for change.
This could happen, unless Obama manages to steamroll right up to Feb. 5 and take some the big states in the process.
And if that happens, it will also mean he will probably steamroll right into the White House, because he's reaching into the Republican pocket already, to pick a few voters in what is trying to become a surprise crossover campaign.
Tomorrow night will tell much more about the steam in Obama's roll.
RWN wrote on January 7, 2008 12:41 PM:I think Trippi has a point that goes deeper than the surface. Clinton's entire campaign strategy was based on an incumbant design and instead of fielding masses of volunteers they had to buy mercenaries. Now looking back they seem to have been poorly prepared for the real campaign....she says she was vented but never actually ran a competitive campaign for herself (Senate in '00 & '06). They bet the farm on a victory in Iowa...including working the schedule back in '06 to have a short front primary schedule. All of this is like a dotcom company....that imploded in '00.
Edwards is betting that he can stay in after she falls apart in SC & Nevada and has to borrow money for Feb 5.
Listen today I witnessed her attempt to connect GW to Obama...what a lame scam. This is over....no one is going to give money or time for this.
wes2 wrote on January 7, 2008 12:42 PM:Leaving Trippi out of it, I'm sure Edwards campaign is smart enough to realize that the chance of Obama slipping dramatically or being bested in a types-o-change contest are extremely slim.
I'd like to think that the Edwards people are fighting for a convincing second in order to shape how the election will be interpreted. If it is Obama over Hillary in a slug-fest, the punditocracy will interpret it as a battle of faces: fresh new face beats out familiar one. If, however, Edwards comes in a convincing second and then folds gracefully, throwing support to Obama without it becoming a bitter battle, then there's a chance that the interpretation will be "80% of Dems come together for far-reaching change."
Here's hoping, at least.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 12:45 PM:Hillary's one claim has been her consensus national poll numbers, which are bound to topple along with her local numbers...
Indeed, it is already happening.
Susan Nunes wrote on January 7, 2008 12:45 PM:If Hillary is broke, then Obama is, too, or almost is broke.
He spent even more money than Clinton in Iowa.
THAT is why Edwards is staying in the race. He knows something the rest of us don't know.
Even if Obama isn't penniless at this point, one or two one-on-one debates with John Edwards will finish him off. Obama can't debate worth a crap, and the entire world will see him as the empty suit he is.
Obama NEEDS Clinton in the race to stay viable.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 12:47 PM:Ava- I'd say at least we know what we are dealing with, the Obama smear campaign has yet to even begin, a complete unknown. I want to qualify first that I am not impressed by either Clinton or Obama as the progressive savior, they are both corporate Democrats and I'm not certain how someone to the right of Clinton is the progressive savior. What will Obama do in response to a stolen election, sit at the table and say please? The point is we have no data to show how the general populice will respond especially after the MSM hypes him to the nomination and then eats him alive, remember they lean right.
My only insight is my sister who worked for Helms, Dole and a DC lobbying firm, she told be last time when Dean looked like he would smoke everyone that it would be Kerry, they wanted him, they would get him, she said this time, don't buy the early Hillary hype, we want Obama, we'll get him, is she a lucky guesser?
MNPundit wrote on January 7, 2008 12:50 PM:Actually Obama probably spent a little less (not a lot less, just a little) in Iowa.
ava wrote on January 7, 2008 12:53 PM:Even if it comes down to a 2 person race between Edwards and Obama. I don't see Hillary dropping out until after Nevada or SC.
Edwards' enemy is money and time. Obama currently has a double-digit lead over him in national polls and, if Hillary drops out before Feb 5th because of back-to-back losses to Obama, Edwards would be going into Super Tuesday with no money and no wins, while Obama would be going in there with 4 wins and money pouring in, the media behind him, and public support consolidating around him – Obama will have the big MO. Remember Edwards is taking public financing, so he can’t compete on equal footing with Obama to advertise in 20 states on Super Tuesday.
Under different circumstances, Edwards could put up a better fight against Obama, but the schedule and his money problems, combined with Obama having all the wins and momentum will be tough to overcome in the time he’s got. I don’t think Edwards can topple Obama at this point.
Susan Nunes @ 12:45 PM:
"Obama can't debate worth a crap, and the entire world will see him as the empty suit he is."
Yeah, we all saw how poor debate performances caused the election to swing away from W in '04 and caused a huge wave of Kerry momentum. Because the public always places so much emphasis on presidential debates and the candidates' performaces in them. (In case you missed it, that was saracsm.)
The sooner Hillary steps aside the better. I'm a life-long liberal democrat and I just can't stand her sense of Presedential entitlement ... beside the fact that she represents the stale Washington establishment.
mdtaichi wrote on January 7, 2008 12:54 PM:The Bus Has Fuel
John Edwards has driven the agenda on the Democratic side of the nominating process (e.g., universal health care, global warming, Smart Trade, education, etc.). I have not heard or read anyone (not the pundits and not the "street") reasonably argue otherwise.
The campaign is driving on beyond New Hampshire with courage, dignity, and a "punched ticket."
Edwards' genuine advocacy has been and will be for America's middle class and its working families as well as those who would otherwise have had no voice at all - its poor. The Edwards "backbone" will stand tall against corporate greed and the financial oligarchy.
Keep in mind that the 300,000 at the top make as much as America's lower-earning 150,000,000. The equation is simple: Rescind the Bush-Cheney tax cut and implement universal health care like every civilized advanced society on this planet but our own. These realities that fuel the Edwards campaign are not going to go away.
Panic in the Clinton camp will drive them to negative quite immediately (like overnight). Let's hear Mark Penn spin silk out of Iowa hog's hair on this one.
Obama is now faced with explaining how he will reconcile the aspirations of his "coalition of the hopeful" with the hard-cold defense mechanisms and systemic advantages of America's corporate and super-wealthy "entrenched interests" represented by their lobbyists. We'll be listening carefully for a realistic strategy that avoids "fighting" for basic rights of American citizenry.
This contest is just getting started. "If you're willing to stand up to corporate greed ... the American people are unstoppable, no matter how much money is spent." John Edwards /
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 12:55 PM:Obama bested Clinton Iowas TV spots by over 2 million not sure on all other expenditures.
Robbedvoter wrote on January 7, 2008 12:59 PM:How Rovian of Trippi! Projecting one's own problems on the opponent! Bush made kerry into a coward as he was DOA...Trippi says Hillary lacks money because Edwards' matching funds can't even be disbursed to him by a quorum deficient FEC....
bob5540 wrote on January 7, 2008 1:00 PM:What Ava wrote.
They were locked and loaded and ready to cream Hillary.
If it's Obama, not only do they start out with less ammunition, but they'll have to bring out the racist dirty bombs to make up the gap.
Ara wrote on January 7, 2008 1:08 PM:Joe Trippi?
Why does anyone believe anything that joker is saying?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 1:08 PM:Actually Obama probably spent a little less (not a lot less, just a little) in Iowa.
Could you point me to those numbers? I would be interested to see them.
Meanwhile, I notice that according to OpenSecrets.org, both Clinton and Obama have quite a lot of cash on hand - much more than Sen Edwards. I do not know how often they update these numbers, but I guess that this makes me sceptical of Mr Trippi's claim, no matter how much I might like for it to be true.
Ava wrote on January 7, 2008 1:09 PM:Anonymous - - I don’t know whether your sister is a lucky guesser or not, but it seems to me that your tone against Obama is patronizing. Anyone who looks at the points I listed for Clinton’s “iffy” candidacy and doesn’t see that she’s potentially trouble in a general election is in denial.
Edwards was humiliated by Dick Cheney in debates, he’s flip flopped his positions more than Hillary (or Kerry), his populous positions are even more “liberal” than Obama’s, and his senate voting record doesn’t agree with his newfound populous dogma. He’s no better in the GE and he’s got no money.
What is Edwards going to do if republicans steal an election? What will Hillary do? Regardless of who it is, it’ll go to the Supreme Court like Gore’s case did in 2000. Please explain to me how Edwards or Hillary would be able to prevent a stolen election? Gore was born into Washington privilege and had the pedigree and all the connections that money can buy and he wasn’t able to stop a stolen election when it happened to him.
If Hillary is so amazing, why couldn’t she come up with an effective strategy to stop this meltdown? Every week it’s a different slogan, a different Hillary. Please.
I don’t repeat Obama talking points. I stick to the facts.
As I inferred when I wrote before, Obama will raise more than he needs over the next two weeks. As well as the tens of thousands of small doners like myself who will write checks again, the fat cats who bet on Clinton will be getting in line to be Barack's new best friend. As for Edwards, he is a classy, smart guy. He knows which way the wind is blowing -- Attorney General?
Long Time Democrat wrote on January 7, 2008 1:12 PM:Here is an honest post from a long time Democrat and a Hillary supporter.
I will admist honestly that Iiked Obama's speech in 2004. The last time I heard speeches as good were by Mario Cuomo in 1984 and Jesse Jackson in 1988.
I will also honestly admit that for whatever reason I am not that attracted to Obama. At my age, having to raise a family, pay bills, deal with all of responsibilities of raising children, putting them through college, I am not easily smitten by candidates based on speeches alone.
For me experience counts, past record counts, and willingness to fight for one's beliefs counts! I also look for a candidate who is specific, and has practical solutions! I also admit, frankly, lower taxes are important to me especially with high energy prices and higher inflation. To me what is important is whether a candidate talks to my everyday problems!
Having watched all of the candidates in various debates and after learning about all of their background, here are my top three candidates for the general election:
Hillary Clinton
Mitt Romney
John McCain
I think these are the candidates who have the experience and background and the smarts to lead this country in times of great uncertainty. I have friends of neighbors who are both Democrats and Republicans. Almost all of the Democrats, I would say, are quite excited by Obama. None of the (middle of the road) Republicans like Obama. They think he is too liberal, inexperienced, and will be bad for the country. Now, it is fair to say that they also don't like Hillary. But, that is expected.
I just have not seen in my immediate environment any great support for Obama from Republicans. They like lower taxes, less regulation, think any health care reform plan is socialized medicine, and basically will not vote for Democrats. They will fight hard for these positions.
I have no idea what "independents" think. Most people I know are either Democrats or Republicans.
Trippi? or Trippin'?
I have to vote for the latter. Just because Joe ran Dean's campaign into the ground and is now doing the same for Edwards doesn't mean he knows squat about Hillary's campaign. This is just an extension of what we saw at the debate on Saturday: Edwards coming to the aid of his soon-to-be-boss, Barack Obama. Why anyone listens to Edwards or Trippi at this point is beyond me. They were not expert at running thier own campaign and they sure as heck aren't qualified to speak on behalf of Clinton's.
Even if Obama isn't penniless at this point, one or two one-on-one debates with John Edwards will finish him off. Obama can't debate worth a crap, and the entire world will see him as the empty suit he is.Obama NEEDS Clinton in the race to stay viable.
Gosh, while this has the advantage of explaining everything that Edwards has done since Iowa, it has the disadvantage of being glaringly implausible. Even if I were to pretend that Obama does not perform well in debates (a strange claim in itself), it is not obvious to me that debates really make that much of a difference. I do not think that this hypothesis really works.
r€nato wrote on January 7, 2008 1:13 PM:FWIW, (and yes this is an anecdote) my Republican parents - VERY GOP parents - are completely turned off by the entire GOP field and both told me yesterday that they could see themselves voting for Obama.
Myself, I'd be glad to see Hillary go down but not because of what the GOP would like to do to her (Clinton witchhunts and faux scandalmongering redux). It's nearly 2010, not 1990s. We need change. Voters more than anything want change (even if they aren't willing to admit that they're sick to death of Bush) Another Clinton in the WH does not represent change.
Desider wrote on January 7, 2008 1:19 PM:In 2004 Dean lost and Kerry won and the press forgot about Edwards. In 2008 Obama won and Hillary came in 3rd and the press forgot about Edwards. It's been decided, you can't make the press talk about you if they don't want. Edwards' only chance is as VP candidate.
Bill Clinton can contribute all the foreign earned money he wants to Hillary's campaign, and considering he often earns over $300K per speech, Hillary won't be running out of money soon. As Fox reports: "It is perfectly legal for a candidate for federal office to use personal income earned in foreign countries — or personal income earned by a spouse in foreign countries."
Come on, Obamites - don't get jittery. You can hold on a month, can't you? 22,000 here, 22,000 there, sooner or later we're talking about real numbers.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:23 PM:Ava- you're barking up the wrong tree if you are asking me to justify Hillary as amazing, that's not something I feel I could do and I have quickly become disillusioned with Edwards, I'm simply trying to distinguish how a corporatist Democrat who has raised as much money as Clinton and from the same industries is deemed godlike and Clinton the spawn of Satan.
I'm sorry if you feel that I am patronizing and frankly today is my first day posting anywhere but I can tell you that as someone who was really for Kucinich that an objective viewpoint looking in sees no more condescending and vicious group than the Obama fans. They constantly scream how awful everyone else is while they are spewing the most venomous comments of all and support their candidate as change, elaborate please.
If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will support him probably more than you, I will get out, I will work hard to get him elected, but again.
If all of my speculation is incorrect, no one will be happier than me.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:Good for you, Desider. I am glad to see that not all the Clinton supporters are giving her up for lost.
Come on, Obamites - don't get jittery.
Don't you worry. We are not. And we will be even more confident by tomorrow night. And then even more so by the evening of Feb 5...
ava wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:OMG - the NYT is reporting that Clinton teared up on the campaign trail today in front of a crowd as she spoke about the strain of the campaign and how important this election is.
If you want the oval office, you can't cry. She's finished. Here's the link.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/clinton-tears-up-talks-about-campaign-strains/
zonk wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:Ahhh...
Right on cue.
The smears didn't work, so now we're starting to see a trickle of HRC supporters holding their breath, taking their ball, going home and promising to vote for Romney/McCain/whatever.
Fine - have fun.
We've got a landscape changer of Reagan proportions likely to get the nod - and certains corners want to pout?
Have at it.... I'm sure there'll be plenty of room at Bill Kristol's pity party celebrating the single, glorious GOP win in Utah.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:Renato, we all have our stories like that, I've heard those like yours and those that are the opposite, they're really meaningless at this point. It's the Democrats who will elect their nominee and it appears it will be Barack Obama, it's a crap shoot in the general.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:27 PM:Zonk, I think you are off base there, what has been clear on these boards is the Obama people would not vote for Clinton, not vice versa.
Joe wrote on January 7, 2008 1:29 PM:A problem for republicans who want to use the race-baiting thing is that IA (and probably NH soon) has shown that there are a lot of whites that support Obama, so the nation isn’t going to want to hear the negative racist crap and they will face a backlash.
Susan Nunes wrote on January 7, 2008 1:31 PM:Don't be too sure the Democratic nominee will be Obama. Obama can't have that much money after doing battle with Clinton.
The Edwards team knows this. I am surprised people don't see the obvious here.
In any case, it better not be Obama or there will be a McCain presidency.
anon wrote on January 7, 2008 1:31 PM:It always seesm like when things get a bit tricky for Hillary we don't hear from colonpowwow or the other Hillary shills. Wonder why? :)
Nickal wrote on January 7, 2008 1:32 PM:Relax, Ava.
This isn't Edwin Muskie, this is Hillary Clinton.
This isn't 1972, it's 2008. I don't think any but the truly devoted haters of HRC will hold this honest expression of emotion against her. Sheesh!
Hillary could walk across the Potomac River and Ava would say, "Hillary can't swim!"
Put things in perspective, will ya?
Greg DeLassus - what do you think? Do you think 20 million voters changed their vote over the last 3 days because Obama won by 8%/22,000 votes in a primarily white midwest state? Suddenly Hispanics switched? Elder women switched? Gays have switched? The whole nation was waiting for a chance to rush for the exits?
Thad Beier wrote on January 7, 2008 1:36 PM:In the end, I think that we will see what the value of Iowa and New Hampshire is to the primary season. These are small states, and it is possible to do full-saturation campaigning in them, and this is a good thing. If we started with California, say, there is no way that the CA voters could have been nearly as informed as the Iowa and NH voters clearly are. Say what you will about their homogeneity, they are informed and interested.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 1:42 PM:Obama can't have that much money after doing battle with Clinton.
The difference between Sen Clinton and Sen Obama in this respect is that much more of Clinton's money comes from donor who have already given the limit. Sen Obama has many more donors (like myself) who have given only a few hundred ($200 in my own case). My wife and I will be happy to chip in a few hundred more to put him right back where he was before IA if that is necessary. As such, I think that it would be unwise to make too many predictions based on cash-on-hand. Obama can still raise plenty.
Susan Nunes wrote on January 7, 2008 1:44 PM:Trippi isn't going to come right out and say Obama is almost broke as Hillary, for Hillary is much stronger against Edwards than Obama. She needs to be knocked off first.
But how can one infer otherwise? Edwards is engaging in a war of attrition, just as he did in 2004, and he almost succeeded but for John Kerry's wife's fortune. This time Edwards, who knows how to manage money, is in the catbird seat.
The moral of the story, which should be spread far and wide to pinheads like Kos, is that unless you have a vast fortune to tap into, like John Kerry had in 2004, candidates NEED public financing for their campaigns.
Neither Obama or Clinton are rich enough to tap into personal fortunes, unlike Kerry, who was challenged by Howard Dean, the darling of the young, who jettisoned public financing as well. Look where THAT got him.
The funny thing of all of this is, the irony even, is John McCain and Mike Huckabee, both of whom are taking public financing, are likely to be the GOP's standardbearers this fall. Edwards and Biden will likely be their opponents.
At least I'm banking on those two to be the Democratic standardbearers.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:45 PM:I think you are spot on Greg and his momentum will keep the money coming and hers will start to dry up, but I think the difference will be largely not from those like you but where they are essentially tied right now in special interest money, he will take the advantage, all the corporate money that is shared between them will move to Obama as he becomes the likely nominee.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 1:46 PM:what do you think? Do you think 20 million voters changed their vote over the last 3 days because Obama won by 8%...
A good question that. I think that we will find out on Feb 5. I am increasingly optimistic about my man's chances on that day, however.
CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 1:50 PM:It was widely reported a week or two ago that Clinton had broken the $100 million mark, meaning they would have to have raised at least another $10 million for Q4. They also don't appear to have spent any more on Iowa than Barack Obama did, probably less. In general, Barack Obama's burn rate has been higher than Clinton's because he's had to out-spend her significantly in an effort to overcome her national name ID advantage. Clinton has been very thrifty by comparison if you look through the reports.
So I'd be pretty confident in guessing this is just a case of Joe Trippi trying to throw another bucket of sand on Clinton's fire in hopes of making Edwards look a little more viable by comparison. I also note that Dean might very well have had a shot at a comeback in '04 if Trippi hadn't already spent his campaign into the poor house before the Iowa primaries were over, leaving them nothing in the bank to fight back with. So Joe Trippi would be just about the last guy you want to look to for financial advice.
Taylor wrote on January 7, 2008 1:54 PM:maybe edwards is angling to be obama's atty general?
VP doesn't make sense. obama is light on intl experience, so he'd want a VP who oozes gravitas. richardson or biden fits that profile much more than edwards.
edwards gets a domestic position if obama wins. treasury out of the question, because he's not a finance guy. but atty gen is right up his power alley.
Erin wrote on January 7, 2008 1:54 PM:well...I'm giving her money. And so are most of my family members, especially the women. Every time she's under attack (it seems like everyday) i pull out my credit card and send some her way. Go Hill! Hang in there!
Shii wrote on January 7, 2008 1:59 PM:well...I'm giving her money. And so are most of my family members, especially the women. Every time she's under attack (it seems like everyday) i pull out my credit card and send some her way. Go Hill! Hang in there!Do you give her money when she does the attacks, too? She's under attack by the majority of voters (30 for Obama + 30 for Edwards) who want her slimy campaign gone. Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 2:10 PM:
I'd be pretty confident in guessing this is just a case of Joe Trippi trying to throw another bucket of sand on Clinton's fire in hopes of making Edwards look a little more viable by comparison.
Much as I would like to believe that Mr Trippi is right and that this race will soon be down to just Obama and Edwards, I have to say that I think that Mr D is correct here. I find it really hard to believe that Clinton is hurting for money so badly that she is even going to think about dropping out before Feb 5.
markg8 wrote on January 7, 2008 2:11 PM:I'm hoping Edwards is angling to become Obama's AG. There won't be anyone left to challenge him in 2016 after he puts half the Republican party in prison.
Wowsas wrote on January 7, 2008 2:15 PM:I could see Hillary running dry. I think claims of Obama running dry are ridiculous. Also, it's hard for me to see Edwards running out.
It's simple, folks, it has to do with the rates at which the various campaigns are spending and receiving money. Both Hillary and Obama have extremely high burn rates. But in Hillary's case, I think she's running out of sources of funding. After Obama's win in Iowa, every lobbyist on K Street outside of the Lockhart firm and other Clinton confidantes is lining up to donate to Obama. Obama will shatter all records this quarter for campaign contributions.
Edwards won't run out of $, because his campaign isn't predicated on the deluge of media and staff of the other two campaigns. His campaign has relied a lot on unions and targeted ad buys. Hillary will either run out of money, or have to adapt to a slower burn rate. But I don't know if her campaign can survive without the perception that she's a "heavy hitter". Or in other words, would you vote for the "establishment" candidate who had lost the support of the establishment (which is going over to Obama)?
Wowsas wrote on January 7, 2008 2:18 PM:And I wholeheartedly agree with Greg D's last post. There is no way Hillary drops out before Feb. 5. She has too many sunk costs; it doesn't make any sense. Also, lest we forget, she is still the leader in the national polls. How long that lasts is anyone's guess, but at least for now, she's the putative frontrunner.
If Joe Trippi's claim is correct, though, what we could see is a drastic belt-tighening for Hillary, which would be almost as devastating as dropping out.
WCG wrote on January 7, 2008 2:22 PM:As usual, these comments are very interesting, but I'm struggling to understand some points of view here. Obama running out of money? He's now in the lead. The money will come pouring in! And Greg is right about us small donors. I just made another Obama donation, myself. I certainly won't have to worry about reaching the limit prematurely! I'm doubtful that Hillary is close to running out of money either, not yet, but it could happen.
Second, no one has negatives like Hillary Clinton. I've never really understood it, but it's a fact. Half the country just absolutely HATES her. Maybe it's different in New York, but not elsewhere. I've always worried that she could win the general election. Sure, the Republicans will go after Obama, too, but it won't be as easy, and they'll seem like jerks doing it. He's just too likable.
And third, Edwards is going after the most partisan elements in the Democratic Party. It's a reasonable strategy in the primaries, because both parties' primary voters tend to be very partisan. And after seven years of Bush, there's a lot of hatred out there among Democrats. I feel it myself. Very, very strongly. But it won't play in the general election. Too many voters are sick of it. And really, it's not what we need as a country. Sure, the Republicans deserve it. They started it, after all. But an eye for an eye is not good tactics and not good policy. We need someone who can bring us together (as much as that's possible), not someone like Edwards who seems determined to ratchet up the anger and the partisanship even further.
If Barack Obama can win the nomination, he'll clobber any Republican in the general election. It won't even be close. Most Americans are ready for someone like him, and he'd have a real chance of a landslide victory - not just electing himself, but dragging along Democrats all across the country on his coattails. With both Edwards and Clinton, they might win a hard-fought battle, but they could never rearrange the political landscape. Obama has that potential, he really does.
Pigboy wrote on January 7, 2008 2:28 PM:Yeah, it's in his candidate's interest, but Trippi's probably right. Hillary's campaign is all about incumbent-like momentum, that she'd get a big push out of Iowa and NH and never look back. Obama is fouling that up and she really needs to do well in NH or she's in real trouble. The question is whether Obama can build enough momentum of his own, or will the Hillary supporters back another horse, i.e., Edwards. It's a dicey proposition, but it is plausible. I like Obama a lot, but he will have some severe electability issues in several states. Due to Bush fatigue, any of the democratic candidates would win the traditional blue states (like Kerry did), but it seems that Edwards would stand the best chance of picking off some borderline states like Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and Florida. If you can get two to three of those tossup states, you can win the national election. I'd like to be provide wrong, but I just don't see how Obama will win those. Iowa and NH simply aren't those kinds of states. Obama is going to have little traction in the south and border states outside of the African American vote, and that won't be enough to make it a real contest. Edwards' consistent message of economic populism will sell in many of those border states (e.g., Ohio and WV) because of economic distress.
JGabriel wrote on January 7, 2008 2:33 PM:Renato: "Another Clinton in the WH does not represent change."
Compare Bill Clinton's presidency to Bush fils.
Lots of people would be more than happy to trade today's administration for a time when the worst scandal plaguing our country was a blowjob. Frankly, it's way more palatable (pun partially intended) than torture, terror, domestic surveillance, incompetence, and a crashing economy.
I like all three of the leading Dem candidates equally. So I have no bone to pick here.
But if Hillary Clinton represents a return to era of Bill Clinton, it would be a major improvement over today. It would be a definite change for the better.
Finally, I remember how, in 1992, we were left after 12 years of Bush/Reaganism with an economy damn near close to shattered, and that Clinton pulled off something I thought would be impossible - not just improving the economy, but getting us to a balanced budget.
So, yes, Hillary represents change. Both as the first woman president and as alternative to the Bushism of the past 7 years.
I don't know yet who I'll be voting for in the primaries on Feb. 6. But I am getting a little tired of hearing people slag Clinton as 'non-change' or 'status quo' simply because she shares a life with and the name of a former president who, in fact, did bring change and some small measure of hope and prosperity to people after 12 years of Reagan/Bush depredations on the middle-class and the poor.
Michael Stevens wrote on January 7, 2008 2:36 PM:What is Sen Edwards' game here? He is rather obviously lending Sen Obama every assistance he can offer in defeating Sen Clinton.
I think Edward's game is pretty obvious. And I don't think he's holding out for the VP, (not yet at least).
Unlike Clinton, Edwards has absolutely nothing to lose, no Senate seat, no "brand name". I believe he's staying in until February in case a game-changing event occurs.
What sort game-changing event could push Edwards to the top?
The Obama wave of popularity has given Hillary almost no options. She simply can not win if she doesn'tgo negative. But she can't go openly negative because Obama is so popular right now. If she were to run attack ads against him today, the blow back would be massive. It would risk Hillary's standing in the party, perhaps even re-election to her Senate seat.
That said, staying positive is a losing game with almost zero chance of victory. Hillary's only remaining options are:
1. Stay in and get soundly beaten in State after State. Diminishing her name and the Clinton brand.
2. Pull out of the race before she is truly decimated and damaged on Tsunami Tuesday.
3. Go negative in a way that is not directly traceable to her campaign.
Option 3 means Opposition Research. The Clintons have a massive opposition research group, although I suspect it has mostly been focused on the Republicans. Unless her opposition research group has dug up something really bad on Obama, I think the Democratic primaries are completely and totally over.
If the Clintons do have dirt on Obama, they will definitely make sure the dirty laundry is released through a series of intermediaries and to a media source with absolutely no connection to the Clintons. But EVERYONE, everywhere would know the actual source of the dirt.
Such dirt couldn't realistically come from any other source. The Republican's are smart enough to hold onto any Democratic dirt until the general. And except Obama himself, none of the other Democratic hopefuls have ever had enough money to fund a large scale opposition research group. If dirt about Obama is released in the next few weeks, it will be from the Clinton campaign.
There would be blow-back against Hillary. The only question is, how much. With Obama mortally damaged by the dirt and the Clinton's blamed for releasing the dirt, Edwards could be the last man standing.
It may sound like a long shot plan, but it's really not so far fetched. Hillary is a cornered wolf. If she has dirt, she will use it. The best time to release it would not be now. It would be about two weeks from now. Two weeks before Tsunami Tuesday.
If she doesn't have any dirt, she'll probably pull out before then and Edwards may then start working for the VP role. But as of now, I think Edwards is still holding out for a Clinton/Obama own goal.
Gregor wrote on January 7, 2008 2:50 PM:GOP may need to draft someone to compete against Obama. Failing that, at least with McCain they lose respectably, and maybe keep their footing in Congress. There is also chatter today that Lou Dobbs is thinking of getting in. Regardless, the GOP/Right is fracturing into a thousand tiny pieces.
I wonder who Obama will take as his running mate.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 3:09 PM:But if Hillary Clinton represents a return to era of Bill Clinton, it would be a major improvement over today. It would be a definite change for the better.
No argument there. I really disliked Clinton at the time he was president. NAFTA, don't-ask-don't-tell and the shameless use of military strikes to distract from adultery!!! headlines left a very sour taste in my mouth. A mere two years of Bush, however, was enough to make me positively nostalgic for Clinton. Seven years have made me look back on the 90s as a sort of Shangri La. I am not nearly as entheused about the idea of "Pres Clinton" as I am about "Pres Obama," but there is no doubt in my mind that either one will be much, much better than the present occupant of the oval office.
Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 3:17 PM:Edwards is all hat and no cattle. He could not handle Dick Cheney in the 2004 debate. It is easy for him to spout off about how tough he is going to be on the Washington establishment when he is not facing them. When he faced Cheney, he bleated like a lamb facing a wolf.
Cheney made John Edwards his cell bride, so we know that Edwards is all blather and no spine.
The Washington power brokers would run right over him, just like Cheney did.
Time to stop buying into John Edwards' self promoting Fairy Tales.
lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 3:19 PM:Edwards has to make it an Obama v. Edwards race or he is done. He is in stroking distance of Hillary. If he doesn't beat her in NH, his support collapses and breaks for Obama as the ABC candidate. This is why Edwards is doing what he is doing and is the only real move he has to stay viable at all.
Wowsas wrote on January 7, 2008 3:20 PM:Liam,
as someone who lives inside the Beltway, my understanding has always been that Edwards was handcuffed by the Kerry folks, including in the debate with Cheney. Which is one reason he never wants to be a VP candidate again.
Or to put it another way, which makes more sense: that Edwards, who's generally been (regardless of whether you support him or not) reviewed as either an outstanding debater or at least a very good debater, suddenly "choked" against Darth Cheney? Or that Edwards was told by Kerry to tone it down?
Occam's razor, baby. Occam's razor.
lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 3:22 PM:eric wrote on January 7, 2008 12:29 PM:I think that Edwards strategy - and I will concede it is a long shot - is to keep himself in this race by finishing ahead of Hillary until there is some serious polling on a head-to-head match ups between Obama and the republicans. That polling with show, I believe, some serious questions about Obama's electibility. The panic that ensues will benefit Edwards because he will likely fare much better in these polls. Right now, though, he just needs to be second.
Exactly.
Edwards needs this to be a 2 person race about who is the real "change agent" and then the FUD on electability. That is his only real path and to do that, Clinton needs to be taken down.
Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 3:31 PM:Susan Nunes, what you are missing is that Obama has already cracked 500,000 inidivudal small dollar donnors who can be tapped again and again. Clinton most likely has a hire burn rate with a much higher percentage that are tapped out at the max. donation.
JGabriel wrote on January 7, 2008 3:34 PM:Greg DeLassus
Seven years have made me look back on the 90s as a sort of Shangri La. I am not nearly as entheused about the idea of "Pres Clinton" as I am about "Pres Obama," but there is no doubt in my mind that either one will be much, much better than the present occupant of the oval office.
Thanks for acknowledging my points, Greg.
It may be a function of my age. I turned 18 in 1983. In my adult life I've known 20 years of Republican rule vs. 8 for the Democrats. And, yeah, in comparison to the rest, those 8 years under Clinton were a Shangri La, by far the best years for the country in my adult lifetime, so far.
I can only hope that whoever the next president is - Clinton, Edwards, or Obama - that it will be a Democrat and that they will do as well or better.
Tom Betz wrote on January 7, 2008 3:49 PM:Glenn Greenwald made the point today that while Rasmussen's national polling has Obama up one point in the last week, it has Edwards up 7 points in the same period -- he's only two points behind Obama.
It's a long way from Iowa and New Hampshire to Denver, and if Hilary craps out quickly, Edwards could benefit, especially among more rurally-conservative Democrats.
An Edwards/Obama ticket could unite rural and urban Democrats like no ticket has since 1976.
HILLARY IS NOT OUT OF MONEY! That's just Trippi's wishful thinking - or forwarding a BS story planted in Drudge Report.
Her campaign will report that Hillary has collected almost $110 MILLION in donations by 12/31/07; almost 60% of which (IMHO) is earmarked for the primaries. She has not spent it all (yet.) And she is still collecting donations from peeps indebted to the Clintons.
The Clinton campaign is, however, moving its attention to the big multi-state primaries in early February, where she still has momentum.
Don't count her out (and ignore the article about her in Drudge Report, as her campaign is known to use Drudge Report to leak misleading articles.)
Michael Stevens wrote on January 7, 2008 3:57 PM:Exactly. Edwards needs this to be a 2 person race about who is the real "change agent" and then the FUD on electability. That is his only real path and to do that, Clinton needs to be taken down.
I think you're discounting another very real possibility. We simply don't know whether the Clinton opposition research machine has dug up any nasty dirt on Obama. No, the Clintons wouldn't be stupid enough to release it directly, still, everyone would know the true source. Hillary would definitely suffer blow-back, the only question is how much.
If Obama were mortally wounded, and the blame were put entirely on Hillary, it could leave Edwards as the last man standing.
I realize this sounds far fetched, but Clinton has By Far the largest opposition research group of any campaign, Republican or Democratic. She is a cornered wolf, if she has dirt, she will use it. But probably not for another two weeks. Timing is everything, and the most harm would come about two weeks before Big Tuesday.
hells kitchen wrote on January 7, 2008 6:44 PM:What's Edwards up to?
Think of a chess game. He goes after the queen. If he captures her, then he only has the king to deal with.
Pigboy wrote on January 7, 2008 8:15 PM:If you think Edwards is all hat and no cattle, think again. His problem is lack of resources, so he is fighting a guerilla campaign. This guy was a big time trial lawyer, one of the top PI attorneys in the country. These campaigns are like trials, a lot of theatrics, and you have to appreciate the way he's maneuvering to take out HRC right now. There's nothing wrong with what he's doing (See Todd Gitlin's Stuart Smalley imitation elsewhere on the site) - I like my presidents to be capable of a little bit of opportunism, and HRC is certainly no angel. His strategy is pretty obvious, but remember he's doing this with a fraction of the money and without any of the political establishment HRC has. Experience that matters in political campaigns doesn't have to come from being a politician.
Mike timmons wrote on January 7, 2008 9:41 PM:I have always believed that once Hillary is out of the way, the candidate who is seen as responsible will get the least amount of support from the Hillary-ites.
I may be wrong, but look to Bill Richardson to get the most out of Hillary dropping out.
It could go three ways to the convention, Bill, John, and Barack all looking for an edge. Then, guess who would wind up the king makers?
Bill and Hill. With Hillary in the number two slot.
concerned citizen wrote on January 7, 2008 10:35 PM:Trippi concerned me since he joined the campaign. I truly hope he does not do to Edwrads what he did to Dean.
I find it hard that either Hillary or Obama has eaten through 100 million reported by them,
Edwards has had an uphill battle since the media dissed him. For all you supportersd out there you need to write to the local papers editorials stressing his accomplishments and his platform
Jeff Winchell wrote on January 7, 2008 11:18 PM:To verify this info, scan the reports at
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/Default.aspx
Between Oct and 4 days after the NH primary, Dean raised an average of 5.6M a month and at the end of this period had only 5M in the bank.
The following month after his losses in IA and NH, Dean raised just 3M. And the month after that only 1M.
So it is clear that new money can dry up fast. It is not unreasonable to assume that a NH loss will result in just 3M raised this month before Tsunami Tuesday.
And if she survives that date, without convincing success, the beginning of the following month has another huge multi-state primary (including Texas).
What isn't clear is how much of that 35M plus a likely 15M from Q4 fundraising (taking into account her announced 20M minus usual percent for general election financing) is available to spend this month.
The cost of campaigning is much larger this month (and the last quarter) than it was in February for Dean. So it is entirely possible that she's in a cash crunch. I'd look for more numbers in the media about likely spending (it seems you can get a fair amount of info without having to wait for quarterly FEC reports). TPM is good at digging.
So go dig.
Jeff Winchell wrote on January 7, 2008 11:31 PM:http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1701153,00.html
They are saying Clinton has between 15 and 25M cash on hand. Not as bad as Dean's 5M after NH, but it could be that the financial needs this month are greater than what Dean needed the month after NH.
BTW, Dean got an additional 1M (as a loan?) that month after the NH loss for a total of 4M for the month.
Third Rail wrote on January 21, 2008 3:45 AM:Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton. Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/
