Hillary Clinton just won't quit!

[ravdin]

Hillary Clinton just "loaned" herself $6.4 million to stay in the race, even though there's no mathematical way she can win.

On the other hand, she has nothing to lose. She and her husband have been living very well at the public's expense. Bill Clinton has reaped $8 million in public benefits since his retirement in 2001- one of his perks includes a $700,000/year lease on his office space in NYC (that's not counting staff, equipment, or $420,000 in phone bills, which you and I have also been forced to pay for).

So since she's on the public teat, there's no reason whatsoever for her to concede. Why bother, when she can just spend more taxpayer dollars to stay in the race?

 

[corplinx]

Does she stand a chance of winning West Virginia? The media keep rehashing this cinderella narrative where clinton is on the ropes and then bounces back to win a primary.

 

[Pookster]

Does she stand a chance of winning West Virginia? The media keep rehashing this cinderella narrative where clinton is on the ropes and then bounces back to win a primary.

She's expected to win West Virginia, which is a good thing. But, it's hard to build momentum when you can only do what people were expecting you to do anyways. She needs a whole lot of momentum ... from somewhere. It would take something on the order of a 20-30% (possibly even more) win in WV to really stir any.

Her biggest problem now may become turnout of her core supporters.

 

[mortimer]

I think she's just hoping against hope that a huge Obama scandal will surface before the convention so she can pick up most of the superdelegates. It's really her only hope.

 

[mortimer]

I think she's just hoping against hope that a huge Obama scandal will surface before the convention so she can pick up most of the superdelegates. It's really her only hope.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hillary Clinton just "loaned" herself $6.4 million to stay in the race, even though there's no mathematical way she can win.

On the other hand, she has nothing to lose. She and her husband have been living very well at the public's expense. Bill Clinton has reaped $8 million in public benefits since his retirement in 2001- one of his perks includes a $700,000/year lease on his office space in NYC (that's not counting staff, equipment, or $420,000 in phone bills, which you and I have also been forced to pay for).

So since she's on the public teat, there's no reason whatsoever for her to concede. Why bother, when she can just spend more taxpayer dollars to stay in the race?

How is the money she and her hubby made with their books and speaking engagements "on the public teat" in this case?

How is Hillary loaning her campaign from her own funds "on the public teat" for these purposes?

Can you back up the assertion of the NYC Clinton offices being paid for by tax payer dollars? If you have a reference, I'd be obliged.

I am no fan of Hillary, far from it, but I don't think your complaint matches how the system works. (If I am in error, I'd be pleased to be corrected.)

DR

 

[dudalb]

I can remember when it was normal that the nominee of both parties would not be settled until early in June when California and a couple of other states had their primaries.

I think she's just hoping against hope that a huge Obama scandal will surface before the convention so she can pick up most of the superdelegates. It's really her only hope.

Agreed. The fact is Obama is looking like a much weaker candidate come November then he did a couple of months ago (except for the True Believers).
Hilary's only hope is that another incident like the Wright incident will come along and make Obama look absolutely unelectable in November to all but the True Believers,and the superdelegates will turn her way for that reason.
No matter who wins, I think the Dems have damaged goods .
This is not to say they won't win in November, but I think election night will be another nailbiter.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I can remember when it was normal that the nominee of both parties would not be settled until early in June when California and a couple of other states had their primaries.

Agreed. The fact is Obama is looking like a much weaker candidate come November then he did a couple of months ago (except for the True Believers).
Hilary's only hope is that another incident like the Wright incident will come along and make Obama look absolutely unelectable in November to all but the True Believers,and the superdelegates will turn her way for that reason.
No matter who wins, I think the Dems have damaged goods .
This is not to say they won't win in November, but I think election night will be another nailbiter.

Obama's hazard in dealing with Rev Wright has now been defused, in May. Maybe this was a tactic used in preemption of that card being played in October by the GOP.

CT moment: Howard Dean was behind the whole thing.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

That's 6.4 million she could have donated to Myanmar...

 

[Brainster]

How is the money she and her hubby made with their books and speaking engagements "on the public teat" in this case?

You're right.

How is Hillary loaning her campaign from her own funds "on the public teat" for these purposes?

You're right.

Can you back up the assertion of the NYC Clinton offices being paid for by tax payer dollars? If you have a reference, I'd be obliged.

He's right.

I don't particularly mind the government footing the bill for these kinds of expenses. They amount to a pittance in the overall scheme of things, and while Bill and Hill have certainly raked in the dough-re-mi over the last few years, I'm sure they've also had legitimate need for an office, telephone, staff, etc.

BTW, the $6.4 million Hillary loaned her campaign mentioned in the OP is already spent; it's just being reported now:

A campaign aide said Clinton gave her campaign another $5 million on April 11, more than a week before the Pennsylvania primary. She then again dipped into her personal wealth for $1 million last week and $425,000 on Monday, one day before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

 

[Suddenly]

She's expected to win West Virginia, which is a good thing. But, it's hard to build momentum when you can only do what people were expecting you to do anyways. She needs a whole lot of momentum ... from somewhere. It would take something on the order of a 20-30% (possibly even more) win in WV to really stir any.

Her biggest problem now may become turnout of her core supporters.

She could win 100% of the vote in West Virginia and it won't mean anything. She's got a huge 25%ish lead as it stands, and that lead will shrink in a hurry if Obama does any significant campaigning here.

The arguments that Clinton still has a chance are starting to resemble the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot.

 

[ravdin]

How is Hillary loaning her campaign from her own funds "on the public teat" for these purposes?

Since she and her husband are on welfare, it eases the burden of their expenses- such as running a losing presidential campaign.

I'm not buying that her book royalties and welfare income are separate. If she had to pay for her own expenses like most of us non-millionaires must do, I doubt she would stay in the race.

 

[Darth Rotor]

He's right.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[joobie]

did anyone else ever have a friend who sang or played piano or something that was just terrible at it, and it seemed like no one would just come out and tell him or her?

well, everyone has been telling hillary for months and she just doesn't get it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Since she and her husband are on welfare, it eases the burden of their expenses- such as running a losing presidential campaign.

I'm not buying that her book royalties and welfare income are separate. If she had to pay for her own expenses like most of us non-millionaires must do, I doubt she would stay in the race.

Are you aware that she also raised money, in sizeable sums (tens of millions) from the usual political campaign contributions method?

I find your objection to Bill Clinton being paid the monies/expenses due him via the Congressionally enacted formulae for ex presidents to be petty. (No, I don't like him much either.)

Tell me, is the only reason that you didn't run for president the fact that you are not married to an ex president, or is there more to your story? (See bolded bit.)

DR

 

[ravdin]

I find your objection to Bill Clinton being paid the monies/expenses due him via the Congressionally enacted formulae for ex presidents to be petty. (No, I don't like him much either.)

Tell me, is the only reason that you didn't run for president the fact that you are not married to an ex president, or is there more to your story? (See bolded bit.)

DR

That's a separate issue. I don't begrudge a pension for any ex-presidents, but there are plenty of public servants who have served our country far more honorably than Bill Clinton who don't receive millions of dollars in public benefits.

The congressional act was originally passed to benefit Harry Truman, who was broke after he left the White House. He refused to cash in on his presidential prestige by giving speeches or serving on corporate boards. The only other living ex-president at the time was Herbert Hoover (he accepted the pension so as not to embarrass Truman, even though he didn't need it).

I see no reason why ex-presidents can't live on a fixed pension like other civil servants. Even if Clinton was paid his former salary for the rest of his life, it would still put him comfortably in the top 99 income percentile among Americans (not counting of course his other income, as unlike Truman he is not too principled to cash in on his former office's prestige). He can then pay for it out of his own pocket if he wants a posh office in Harlem.

I would also add that his travel expenses are covered, a boon to his wife's campaign. He might not be her most effective supporter, but he certainly is her most visible one.

To answer your other question, I have about as good a chance of being elected president as I would for a city council seat for where I live (that is to say, none at all). If I were foolish enough to try, I wouldn't relish seeing my past picked apart by reporters. I don't think I'd look very good on TV pretending that I regularly shoot guns on Sunday morning before I go to church.

Most importantly, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be very good at the job if I did get elected.

 

[joobie]

allegedly and anecdotally, harry s also paid the postage on his personal mail, reasoning that all of us simple folk shouldn't pay for that just because we footed the postage on the mail he sent as president.

true/not true? certainly fits in with his legend.

 

[chipmunk stew]

She could win 100% of the vote in West Virginia and it won't mean anything. She's got a huge 25%ish lead as it stands, and that lead will shrink in a hurry if Obama does any significant campaigning here.

The arguments that Clinton still has a chance are starting to resemble the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot.

I was thinking the Black Knight.

 

[T.A.M.]

The title OP reminded me of the quote from this guy...

http://gullyborg.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/heston.jpg

TAM

 

[Darth Rotor]

I see no reason why ex-presidents can't live on a fixed pension like other civil servants. Even if Clinton was paid his former salary for the rest of his life, it would still put him comfortably in the top 99 income percentile among Americans (not counting of course his other income, as unlike Truman he is not too principled to cash in on his former office's prestige). He can then pay for it out of his own pocket if he wants a posh office in Harlem.

I would also add that his travel expenses are covered, a boon to his wife's campaign. He might not be her most effective supporter, but he certainly is her most visible one.

Thanks for the detailed response. I don't think the system was built on a model whose assumptions included former first ladies becoming candidates, but that's a separate issue.

DR