Michael, a reader, writes:

Just thought you would enjoy the usual feminist carrying on by Hillary. Seems she expects Obama’s gang to bail her out financially. Why does this sound so familiar?

Mike refers me to CNN’s Jack Cafferty and provides the following excerpt:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be campaigning and fund-raising together these days. But behind the scenes, there are some nasty wounds that are a long way from being healed.

The New York Times reports that many Obama donors are not too eager to help Clinton pay off her estimated $23 million in campaign debt. Some are saying things like “Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband. Or – god forbid – Mark Penn.”

Obama has asked his top donors to help Clinton retire her debt, but Clinton officials say so far they’ve come up with less than $100,000, which one adviser describes as a “paltry sum.”

Obama’s donors say they think Clinton racked up most of this debt after it was mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination, and she simply spent additional money doing damage to Obama. His campaign also says it’s unclear how much money from Obama supporters will satisfy the Clinton camp.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s people think Obama has been half-hearted in his fund-raising efforts on her behalf and should do more to include Hillary’s people in his campaign. Some are also complaining that Obama has not asked his 1.5 million small donors to contribute to Clinton. 

Actually, I think what Cafferty describes in the excerpt is rather unfair both to Hillary and Obama. A couple points:

1) I don’t think it’s very realistic to be asking that Obama harangue his donors to donate to Hillary to repay her debt. If Obama asks his “1.5 million small donors to contribute to Clinton,” every dollar given is one he could have gotten for his own campaign. Hell, the man is locked in a mortal struggle to become the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world–he’s supposed to go raise money for someone else? I can see it as a strict quid pro quo for Hillary’s support and campaigning, but little beyond that.

2) I think the statement, “Obama’s donors say they think Clinton racked up most of this debt after it was mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination, and she simply spent additional money doing damage to Obama” is pretty unfair. Hillary Clinton wasn’t spending the money to harm Obama, she was spending it to win the nomination.

You could argue that this was foolish to do at that point, but it was certainly her right to do it. And I can understand. She thought she was the better candidate, and she may well have been right. Moreover, she’d run a long, expensive, and draining campaign and came up only a little short–I can see why she would want to fight as long as possible.

3) It seems like a very difficult situation for the Clintons–who on earth wants to donate to retire debts from a campaign which is already dead? Only people seeking the Senator’s influence, and that’s usually not a good thing.

Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com

[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]

Be Sociable, Share!