WHERE I STAND:

Brian Greenspun says Clinton put her money where her mouth is

Sun, Feb 10, 2008 (2 a.m.)

The whole world loves an underdog.

Using that logic, the whole world must love Hillary Clinton. OK, that may be stretching things a bit. But it is safe to say the media’s anointment of Sen. Barack Obama as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president has shaken the conventional wisdom sufficiently to make people believe the former inevitability of Sen. Clinton’s nomination is now in doubt.

Her status was further eroded Super Tuesday when it was learned that she put $5 million of her own money into her campaign just before that big night. The pundits and other talking heads had her campaign dead and buried with that bit of news. Again, I think they read it wrong.

I must admit that even I, an unabashed Clinton supporter, was taken aback at the idea that she could be out of money. Other than Mitt Romney this year and a few exceptions to the rule in past elections, candidates just don’t fund their own campaigns.

But after watching the returns on Super Tuesday, I realized why she put the money in, because I saw the tangible results. California went overwhelmingly to the New York senator. Massachusetts, a state whose major political figures — Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry and the popular governor, Deval Patrick — put their prestige on the line and stumped for Obama. The lady won big. For sure, Sen. Obama did very well that night, but not as well as the pre-Super Tuesday hype had everyone believing.

What has happened, though, since Super Tuesday is that Sen. Obama has become the front-runner, the man to beat, the favorite, call him what you will. And Hillary Clinton, the person who will become the first female president of the United States, is now the underdog.

So, what does that mean? It means that now we will see what she is made of.

With all due respect to Mitt Romney, he pulled out of the race this week because it became clear that his road to the White House had become nearly impossible. He used national security — heard that one before — as his excuse for getting out now, but the reality is that he wasn’t going to spend any more of his own money chasing what had become an unattainable dream. Nothing wrong with that — he is a practical man, after all.

Hillary, on the other hand, in the face of polls moving heavily against her, momentum crushing her at all turns and the media crowning its new darling, stepped up to the plate and wrote what for her and her husband was a very large check and a significant portion of their net worth.

And that, I believe, is what may have turned the tide for her. Hillary is now matching Barack practically dollar for dollar since Super Tuesday, or at least close enough for government work. And even if she loses a few more contests this month, which seems likely, it appears there are people joining her campaign in numbers previously unmatched.

It is a realization, I believe, that this country is focused and engaged thoroughly and all those erstwhile soccer-security (or whatever we call those) moms today are making their voices heard. They are yelling with their checkbooks.

And, I believe, when the big states vote again March 4, they will yell even louder with their votes.

In the business world, I love people who come to talk to me about their good ideas. What I love more, though, are people who want me to invest in those ideas who are willing to put their own money at risk. That shows me how serious they are about their dreams and that they are willing to risk their money right alongside my own.

I don’t think it is any different in the political world. I have a great deal of respect for Mitt Romney, who led the way in his fundraising efforts by writing huge checks of his own. It is a testament to his seriousness and his belief in his own ability to be the kind of president this country needs.

The same is true for Hillary. All she has known her adult life is public service and the presidency represents the ultimate in service to her fellow man. She has had wealth only in the past few years — thanks to some excellent books and some magnificent speech-making by her husband. To give up one in pursuit of the other seems natural to her, although it is a rarity in the political world.

For those of us on the outside looking in, it is a sign of commitment to this race for the presidency as well as the punctuation point on her belief that she is the best man or woman for the job.

So, now we have Hillary Clinton as the underdog who is willing to risk a large portion of her net worth in pursuit of her desire to be president of this great country. In short, she has put her money where her mouth is.

Everything I know about America tells me that she is right where she needs to be to win this thing. Because the whole world, or just that part that covers the United States, loves an underdog willing to take the risk.

The race goes on.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By poh123

2/10/08 at 2:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wow! What a great read. Thanks!
By Leigh

2/10/08 at 3 a.m.

Suggest removal

Two supporting comments: First, this campaign has convinced me that the cable bobbleheads are useless and the last thing one wants to call their ramblings is "information". It's well packaged spam. Second, if the pundits were actually capable of analysis, they would have recognized that Clinton's grassroots supporters are many, but they were not contributing because there was no sense of urgency telegraphed by the campaign! Once the pundits broadcast (with a smirk) that she was using her own funds, Clinton supporters came out in droves. They only needed to be informed--thankyouverymuchbobbleheads. Clinton has much more grassroots support than the bobbleheads dare to admit--they are too busy weaving salacious stories than to actually...think.
By cmlv

2/10/08 at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mr. Greenspun failed to say that this money was a loan. Anybody who believes that any of this money is at risk for Hillary is a fool. Win or lose, Hillary will have a seriers of fundraisers to pay of campaign debt--even if that debt is to herself. This campaiign won't cost her a penny. The same can not be said for Mitt Romney.
By NVMojo

2/10/08 at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

"I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit."
By bs4shure

2/10/08 at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Obama is a liar. Comments by friends in Hawaii don't remember him taking drugs as he writes in his book. In his book he claims he wrote about his life. later he said he wrote composites not actual friends as he leads the readers to believe.
By Leigh

2/10/08 at 4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yes, I have the sense that Barack Obama is--I don't want to say he's a liar--but disingenuous and (sorry) a bit of a phony. He's also getting a little arrogant, but so are lots of other politicians. It's just a sense of him. I also think that many Americans will begin to cool as they get their fill of his verbiage. It's good verbiage! But there's no ideas or plans. Sorry to say, but something doesn't ring true there. And I was very impressed by him for a while!
By sunset

2/10/08 at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

I really admire your unwavering support of the junior senator. I respect her and her candidacy.

However, I view the Senator's loan as the symbolic bookend to an era of political fundraising that relied disproportionately on well connected wealthy individuals that could max out their contributions on the first day a candidate announced.

The democratization of political fundraising will usher in a paradigm shift in the conventional wisdom governing campaign finance. Long gone are the days that any candidate can come to Nevada or any other state and simply focus on cultivating a relationship with the gentry class and neglect the masses.

Bundlers will always be relevant for local, congressional and senate campaigns, but the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, You Tube and high speed internet access has turned presidential political fundraising on its head.

Senator Clinton’s loan represents an investment in a strategy that is fundamentally rooted in an antiquated view of the power of a truly grass-roots campaign.