Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Far Are the Clintons Willing to Go?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 18, 2008.


Hillary has shown she'll do whatever it takes to win, even if that means overriding the majority of voters and skirting campaign finance laws.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Parry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior "ready on Day One" management skills, burned through almost $130 million of campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds, and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to raise more money.

Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law -- as some backers consider putting money into "independent" entities that can spend unlimited sums but aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaign -- while other ideas are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.

Sen. Clinton's new scramble for money -- as well as her campaign's declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination -- raise the question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to achieve their presidential restoration.

Some Democrats, who have e-mailed me, praise the ruthlessness of the Clinton political machine, arguing that only a readiness to throw sharp elbows can defeat the Republicans this fall. These Democrats hate what they call Barack Obama's "Kumbayah" message of national reconciliation, a reference to the campfire song based on an old African spiritual.

However, other Democrats fear that the Clintons are putting their personal ambitions ahead of what's good for the Party and the country, that they are ready to dirty up Sen. Obama with attack ads and dismiss his millions of supporters as -- what one key Clinton backer called -- "a cult of personality."

If the Clintons overturn the majority will, the Democratic convention in Denver could bring to mind the infamous Chicago convention in 1968 when the Democratic establishment imposed its favored candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, on a rebellious rank-and-file, contributing to the election of Republican Richard Nixon.

Though a repeat of the 1968 violence is unlikely, a Clinton-driven insistence that the will of Democratic voters be cast aside could alienate millions of young people and independents who have rallied to Sen. Obama's message of political change.

In a conference call to reporters last week, Sen. Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, made clear that the campaign was prepared to rely on her superior support among the 796 "superdelegates" -- party insiders and government officials -- to overcome Obama's lead among delegates chosen through primaries and caucuses.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates," Wolfson said, adding that the Clinton campaign would make no distinction between the caucus/primary delegates and the "superdelegates."

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," Wolfson said.

Senior strategist Mark Penn also indicated that the Clinton campaign would press the issue of seating pro-Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan, where she won unauthorized primaries conducted after the national party barred the states from holding contests before Feb. 5 and after other major candidates agreed not to compete.

The Money Race

The Clinton campaign also is appealing for substantial sums of money to spend on advertisements in upcoming primary states: Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 13 that some of Sen. Clinton's top fund-raisers, who have "maxed out" at the individual limit of $2,300 and have tapped out their personal network of donors, are consulting with lawyers about how they can create "independent" groups that can spend unlimited money in support of her campaign.

Susie Tompkins Buell, founder of the Esprit clothing company, was weighing whether to start her own entity for buying ads to promote Clinton or to put money into an existing pro-Clinton organization, like the feminist political organization Emily's List which has already spent about $1 million on Clinton's behalf, the Journal reported.

"We all feel very passionate about it, so the question is, what is the best thing we can do to get her across the finish line?" Buell told the Journal.

The Journal interviewed another Clinton fund-raiser, who declined to be named but who said he might spend $500,000 on pro-Clinton television, radio and newspaper ads.

As the Journal noted, however, "It's not certain that any of the efforts by the Clinton fund-raisers will get off the ground [because] campaign-finance law makes it difficult for campaign insiders to fund independent efforts to elect candidates."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, bill clinton, election 2008

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Modesty has no place in politics
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 18, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it weren't for Parry's accusative tone, I might have found the article aimed at examining the very worst dimensions of Clinton's campaign in order to disarm the opposition. But the haughty miss manner's punctiliousness about alleged breaches of etiquette shows Parry aspiring to be opposition. So no defense of the Clintons is required.

When was the last time you heard someone criticized for working as hard as they can to win? That's what we all learned in kindergarten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Modesty has no place in politics Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» Who approves of cheating? Posted by: Sojourner
» what shady things? Posted by: foreverhope
Clinton Repug in Dem clothing
Posted by: RobNLA on Feb 18, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really is the difference between a Republican and Hillary? She's pro-war, in the pocket of the Israel lobby. Is willing to pull dirty tricks to get elected. Thinks it is ok to suppress votes that don't support her. And the list goes on.

This is why many Dems simply won't vote for her. If she does steal the nomination, then she'll lose in the general election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clinton Repug in Dem clothing Posted by: monkeywrench
» Ahh, so you support corruption Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: Clinton Repug PLUS! Posted by: TarryFaster
» RE: Clinton Repug PLUS! Posted by: Bec59
» Surprised by your hatered Posted by: pierrot
» RE: Clinton Repug in Dem clothing Posted by: fringedweller
Compare with weekend Obama headline
Posted by: anothername on Feb 18, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The headline for the weekend Obama piece on AlterNet asked if Obama was an emotional escape from the Bush years. Today's headline on Clinton is all about doing anything to win. I refuse to lose hope for balanced journalism and reporting but I sure would like to have some evidence of change towards that goal.

While it takes repetitive articles to get messages embedded in minds, I cannot but wonder what issues are happening in the environment, consumer protection, small business support, and numerous other areas that are not being covered in the media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: The Shuster Affair Posted by: davescott
One more thought:
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 18, 2008 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some high placed Democrats are hinting that the nomination will be denied to Obama even if he wins the primaries via the so-called "Super Delegate" process.

NOTE TO THE DEMS:
If you even attempt to do that, it's all over. Your base will bolt the party so fast you won't even know what hit you. Think I'm kidding?

Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Or a non-viable one! Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Or a non-viable one! Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Sure I would ... Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Sure I would ... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» And George W won the 2000 election Posted by: anothername
» Theft?! Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Theft?! Hillary-ous!!! Posted by: seacaptdon
» Sorry...but... Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Sorry...but... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Sorry...but... Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Sorry...but... Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Sorry...but... Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Sorry...but... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: marxalot
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: Bec59
» spam spam spam spam Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: Quannah
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: liberalibrarian
» liberalibrarian: Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: liberalibrarian: Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: maggzilla
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 18, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Direct Primaries!

Direct Elections!

Direct Democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Bad Article
Posted by: bikerdude on Feb 18, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This accusatory article is more anti-Clinton blather. I don't know why you would publish such tripe. They are intelligent, competent and feel they can help America. Agressive? Yes. Wrong? No. Wait until you see that Republican slime machine in gear! Lets report on truth and facts and leave this innuendo crap for the likes of Matthews or Faux News.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bad Faith, Sad Truth Posted by: gazooks
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Republican Rooted Posted by: joseph_b26
» agree Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: Bad Article Posted by: davescott
» RE: Bad Article Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Bad Article Posted by: seacaptdon
Lust for power
Posted by: Democritus on Feb 18, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nowhere does Lord Acton's famous phrase ring truer than when applied to the Clintons. But not only does power corrupt, it's addictive. You would think that Bill Clinton would be happy to ride off into the sunset on his book deals and lecture appearances. But no, there he is pushing his wife toward the presidential nomination with the power of the Democratic machine behind him. And you know that if Hillary is elected, he will help her call the shots.

There are doubtless those who think that's a good thing. I don't. Bill Clinton's march to the right when pushed by the Gingrich Republicans might have suited the times, but that time is past. We can't go any farther right without becoming a fascist state. (Some would think we're already there.) With Hillary we'd get no repeal of NAFTA, a lukewarm health-care proposal, a continuing but nuanced "war against terror," and no action to get Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians--especiallly if AIPAC becomes her big contributor.

Mrs. Clinton might continue to be an effective Senator from New York. Why she seems insistent on thwarting the ambitions of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party at all costs defies rational explanation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lust for power Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Lust for power Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
» RE: Lust for power Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Lust for power - Bec? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Lust for power Posted by: GPFrank
johncp
Posted by: johnp on Feb 18, 2008 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can there be anything more stupid than the accusation, that Hillary "will do anything to win?" The imbecility, the craven hypocrisy, and bullshit of this charge cannot be overstated. Is it really necessary to make it clear that any candidate will do anything to win? I can't believe it's necessary to say this. If anyone wants to see extremes operating here, look to the buffoon that wrote this essay against Hillary. I cannot find words to express how I despise these cowardly Hillary-haters. If you want to see the worst extremes, ask yourself if mainstream media will not do anything and say anything to destroy Hillary's campaign. Media are beneath contempt. Mainstream media have descended below the toilet, to the sewer. The stammering, senile, coward, Wolf Blitzer daily, spits his bile at Hillary, but hides from any possible criticism in response to his filth. The mere existence of creeps like Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and all the other despicable
gasbags on the boob tube, make me shiver with shame and contempt for my gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: johncp Posted by: Democritus
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: johncp Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
» RE: johncp Posted by: Bec59
» RE: johncp Posted by: rickiey
Her very candidacy
Posted by: Blink on Feb 18, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
goes against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. At the very least, can't Bill just shut up and let her give the appearance of running on her own rather than constantly reminding everyone that he's part of the package?

Besides...why vote for Clinton when there is such an attractive alternative --a candidate who will help us achieve Change through the power of Hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Her very candidacy Posted by: Bec59
» Uh...yeah. Posted by: Blink
» RE: Her very candidacy Posted by: davescott
» Nonsense Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: davescott
» End of debate?!? Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: seacaptdon
» RE: Her very candidacy Posted by: Sparks56
» No kidding Posted by: Blink
» RE: Her very candidacy Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Her very candidacy Posted by: Sparks56
» Sparks, you are right about LBJ... Posted by: foreverhope
too bad that Hillary can't use her best argument against Obama: the election of Tony Blair in 1997
Posted by: Suzon on Feb 18, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
changed nothing. In fact, Blair turned out to be more Thatcherite than Thatcher herself. There was plenty of hope when John Major was turfed out of 10 Downing Street, but the hope was followed by ten years of bitter disappointment.

But the Clintons and the Blairs were too cozy for Hillary to be able to distance herself. She would have to have a brain transplant before I would even consider voting for her. Why not have a properly labeled Republican in the White House? As a friend of mine who grew up in Spain but moved to England said, "At least in Spain under Franco, we knew we were living in a dictatorship!"

Does anyone believe that she has a snowball's chance anyway? The excitement about a possible woman or black president whipped up by the corporate media will evaporate if either one is chosen.

Could the delegates be smart enough to realise that both Clinton and Obama would be demolished by the same powerful forces that created them as the only possible candidates?

Can the delegates wake up and realize that the candidate which would both confound the corporate king-makers and excite the electorate would be John Edwards?

What is the worst that can be said of him? Giving a hairdresser 400 bucks is not in the same league as taking big money from Big Pharma. And having once worked for a hedge fund? How about having quit working for it? Having built a big family home? What would you rather he had done with his money? And he is not a war enthusiast.

Edwards seems to be not only an intelligent man, but one capable of learning. Draft John Edwards!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Edwards B.S. again Posted by: freedomlover
» RE: dwards B.S. again Posted by: foreverhope
uh...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 18, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not HILLARY willing to override what the people want. Well, sure, she will... but more fundamentally it is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that is so willing to do it for Hillary.

If she gets the nomination it will be because of superdelegates. Between the superdelegates, the media jiggering of who actually gets face time and soundbites to determine who is a "frontrunner", the system of giving entire states to candidates, and the electoral college it becomes obvious that we get to pick between the two candidates that corporate america approves of... and Hillary is obviously the one they want for the Dems this time around. What the people want be damned.

If Hillary gets the nomination then you no longer have legitimate elections... not that you really have them even if she doesn't get it. But at that point they would not only be illigitimate, but also outright fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: uh... Posted by: foreverhope
In the southern part of Texas, near the town of San Antone
Posted by: solrev on Feb 18, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton has the support of the old demon party and they are dying for the chance to make her the nominee without destroying any chance to win the election. Ohio will have little meaning because independents can vote and independents choose Obama, Clintonites will write it off as those dam independents if Clinton loses. Pennsylvania is a little bit more clouded it appears that independents are switching their registration. Texas is the key, only demons can vote in their primary, and Texas has with a large Latino population and a large women population. If Obama can make strides in these two groups and beat Clinton, the demons will have spoken and the old party masters will have to switch their support to Obama. If Obama does not beat or split Texas, the good old boys may railroad Clinton in, and lose the election. The independents will revolt against the demons along with the youth vote. Do you think that is really the plan of the puppet masters? In any case the game ends at the Alamo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Latinas" Mexican-American Women Posted by: DigitalAztec
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
What if it's a dead heat at the convention?
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 18, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, neither has enough delegates and their delegate totals are virtually tied. This article makes much of opposing the will of Democratic primary voters but what if the vote totals are close. One letter to the NYTimes suggested that, if the delegate counts are within 5% of each other, that the superdelegates should act at their discretion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» superdelegates. Posted by: foreverhope
Interesting Analysis on Administrative Skills of top three Candidates
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Feb 18, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This weekend on one of my Sunday Morning News Programs (Washington Week with Gwen Ifill? My neighbor, Tyler stopped by to grab coffee . . . ), a very intersting point was discussed.

WHO has best managed their CAMPAIGN from getting out their grassroots supporters to spread the news to MOST IMPORTANTLY managing the hundreds of millions of Dollars in their campaign "War Chest?"

ANSWER?
Hillary had to provide a $5 Million Personal loan and, even at that, staffers agreed to work without pay.

John McCain was on a toddler's shoestring budget prior to appearing to becoming the RNC Candidate.

Winner of best administrator of a large multi-state, no rules, react as necessary and with panache?

BARACK OBAMA

That isn't bashing McCain or HIllarry, that was the truth. Hmmm..It hadn't even crossed my mind until the discussion came up on the program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Rebecca from OHIO
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 18, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey America! Listen up! Before you go to the polls, bone up on the opposition research that will be coming out as soon as we Democrats pick our nominee-

The Repubs are being nice and quiet about Obama for a big reason. They think Hillary can win the main election, sooo, they are praying that Obama gets the nomination---then the proverbial sh*t will hit the fan hard--all us democrats will be very disenheartened, dispirited----

The die-hard Obama fans will "stay the course" because they will not swallow their pride in their pick, but, the Independents and less disillusioned will jump off the burning band wagon---go to "No Quarter" Larry Johnson "No He Can't Because, Yes, They Will"--google it--read just some of the true stories that are waiting in the wings concerning Obama---not good at all. We need a capable winner. Let's not putz around anymore!

Get thee behind Hillary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: ebecca from OHIO Posted by: Bec59
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: ebecca from OHIO Posted by: Bec59
» RE: ebecca from OHIO - lol, nervy Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: ebecca from OHIO Posted by: nicR
» RE: ebecca from OHIO Posted by: pizzmoe
» Logic impaired Posted by: improperly_sedated
» Agreed! Posted by: Sparks56
Alternet's anti-Hillary bias
Posted by: BeckySharp on Feb 18, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm resigning from Alternet because of it's persistent anti-Hillary bias. Mitt Romney wasn't criticized for funding his own campaign. Nor was John Kerry for dipping into his wife's deep pockets. We need more critique of the issues, not tactics, which every candidate who succeeds pushes to the limit. Sorry,otherwise, I have appreciated Alternet. But I take this personally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Alternet's anti-Hillary bias Posted by: joseph_b26
superdelegates
Posted by: davescott on Feb 18, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama has a substantial lead in pledged delegates, I believe Clinton will withdraw. If it is close, she has every reason to pursue superdelegates. If the superdelegates are meant to mindlessly split by the same proportion as the primary delegates, there is no reason for them to exist at all. Obama's overall popular vote barely exceeds Clinton's. The spinning gets tiresome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: superdelegates Posted by: jontv
Saint Barack vs the Evil Hillary
Posted by: davescott on Feb 18, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Saint Barack vs the Evil Hillary narrative is more than a bit tiresome. As NBC reported, Obama's bill to require reporting of nuclear leaks turned into a pathetically weak request to the NRC to "consider" rules. Exelon employees, the affected party, have been leading contributors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
oh what sexist horseshit
Posted by: davescott on Feb 18, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a spouse can't run? a yale law graduate shouldnt run?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oh what sexist horseshit Posted by: davescott
The convention is in August. It's February.
Posted by: davescott on Feb 18, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a little early to be getting too excited about some overheated "stolen nomination" scenario. Can we at least let Texas and Ohio vote first?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 -