Log In | Register
I just read this February 8 op-ed titled "Can Mrs Clinton Lose?" from the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan who discusses whether or not Hillary's Clintonian attitude and tactics would even allow her to see the big picture if in fact her party chooses to nominate Obama believing that he has the better chance of defeating McCain.
Noonan's article got me thinking. I recalled things I'd been hearing lately about who the outspoken Repulicans prefer to run against. Rush Limbaugh said on his show that he wants to start a fundraising effort called "Keep Her In It So We Can Win It." A FOX News commentator even admited that there is a consensus among Republicans that they want to run against Clinton because most of them believe strongly that they'll rally enough sentiment against her to defeat her.
Then, after Super Tuesday, Clinton's campaign disclosed that their funds had been getting low. Her senior staff offered to work for free for a month the same day that the campaign admitted that a month prior Clinton had lent the campaign $5M of her personal money in order to make it all the way to Super Tuesday (and somehow they avoided disclosing that potentially damaging info anytime before Super Tuesday).
So here's what I find interesting: after learning that her funds were getting low her supporters stepped in and donated at least $6M in the two days following Super Tuesday -- perhaps her base was re-energized as a result of her lead over Obama not being totally wiped out, but I still find that $5M sum to be a little high.
Her supporters hadn't shown financial means to that degree anytime before this. Sure her campaign efforts have drummed up continued support but consider also that whenever it's convenient, her political strategists reinforce the idea that she has greater appeal among the beer crowd while Obama appeals to the wine crowd, i.e. his are the more affluent supporters. Obama's supporters did in fact donate a good portion of his $32M in January and his $7M in the same two days since Super Tuesday.
So the question is -- in the midst of this down market and reduced spending and stagnant wages -- where did Clinton's supporters suddenly get so much money to give away toward her bid?
I hate to suggest anything remotely conspiratorial, but could we be seeing the effects of what Rush Limbaugh was suggesting? Could Hillary Clinton's campaign be starting to get donations from hardcore Republicans who actually need her to succeed? Is it really far fetched to think so? There's no real demographic data that accompanies donation data but ever since her far from dominant outcome on Super Tuesday, she suddenly has the financial support of more affluent donators who have vested interests in seeing her become the nominee. Could it be that these new supporters are not all Democrats?
If she wins, of course we'll be led to believe that the contest came down to her previously pledged super delegates on top of her hard work. But will we ever know who boosted her? Could the case be that her arch enemies, who she once famously called the "vast right wing conspiracy," are behind her last grasps for control?
What do you think?
