Interesting take on why Hillary won't quit from Earl Caldwell (Pacifica)

[HamdenRice]

Earl Caldwell is the host of a news/talk radio show on New York's Pacifica Radio affiliate, WBAI. Last week he made a long commentary on why he thought Hillary stayed in the race and will continue to bargain for authority within the Obama campaign and administration. Unfortunately, WBAI does not transcribe Caldwell's show, so I'll try to summarize it from memory.

He said that Hillary had relied on very large donors making large donations and bundled donations early in her campaign. These corporate donors do not make political donations simply because prefer one candidate over another or prefer one candidate's policies over another.

They make donations in exchange for promises -- promises about what the candidate will do when in office that will affect the donor's bottom line. Hillary, like most pre-Howard Dean politicians, basically made tens of millions of dollars worth of promises (that is, the amount she raised from big money corporte donors). These big money corporate donors are not going to say, "oh well, we tried, but I guess our woman lost -- so much for all that money we paid." These corporate donors do not take "no" for an answer. After taking money in exchange for promises, and failing to deliver, Hillary will be in a world of trouble if she cannot deliver.

We're talking big money and big promises. She either has to extract promises to deliver on her promises from Obama, or put herself in a position within an Obama administration to make sure her promises are carried out -- and since the vice presidencies of both Cheney and Gore, the vice president's office has taken on much greater stature in the policy making process.

Since Howard Dean showed the way in 2004, however, progressive Democrats increasingly do not have to make promises to big money donors to raise money, because they raise money, especially over the internet, from small donors, who do not extract promises. (If you are thrilled with Obama's nomination, you should take a moment to thank the good doctor!)

This is big money's last hurrah. If they can't extract promises now, they may never be able to again.

[pbca]

1. I actually wondered about that

The last few months she has run her campaign like she owes money to the Mafia and winning is the only way she'll get it.

[HamdenRice]

2. "like she owes money to the Mafia"

I didn't want to come out and put it that way, but basically, yeah.

[mod mom]

36. Those large speaking fees her husband receives come w strings attached as well.

[tularetom]

3. She sold her soul to the corporations

Now she's gonna spend the rest of her life hiding from the people she couldn't deliver for.

Why do I not feel a great deal of sympathy for her?

[IndyOp]

4. To cut to the chase: If she doesn't "win" she loses ALL power no matter how she behaves now.

People who are confused about why she isn't endorsing Obama today - who believe that she could've restored her reputation by being gracious last night - don't understand that her reputation is gone unless she gets the power position that will allow her to get done what she promised to do.

Hm. Insane, but in a different way than I had been thinking before.

I've long imagined that she was fighting so hard because there are things the Clinton dynasty (corporate dynasty) doesn't want revealed.

[Imagevision]

5. All the more reason Obama should pass on Hillary as the VP.

[speedoo]

6. Very interesting. And almost certainly correct.

Wish I could have heard it, but thanks for the summary.

K&R.

[sniffa]

7. That's a good take. Thanks for posting.

A rec' for you.

:kick:

[Mme. Defarge]

8. Well, if there weren't enough reasons already

to keep her off the ticket, this is a big one. Really, this is the only thing that possibly explains why she has publicly humiliated herself and self-destructed on the world stage.

[EV_Ares]

9. Is she trying for an ambassadorship in some faraway land to hide from

these people who gave her money?

[wileedog]

10. "This is big money's last hurrah."

Nah, they'll always have Congress....

[DJ13]

11. Spot on, but I would have taken it just a bit further than he did

Those corporations didnt just "invest" in her campaign, they bought and paid for her (and Bill's) loyalty to their cause through graft.

Our political culture now believes its acceptable for candidates (or former Presidents) to "accept" hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 45 minute speech from these same corporations.

Theres a reason these corporations who are so tight with a buck they dont give cost of living increases to their salaried workers felt compelled to over-pay Bill for his speaking ability to the point the Clinton's now are worth over $100 million.......

[HamdenRice]

14. She also needs big money donors to pay off her campaign debts

Without delivering something, I don't think they will be happy donating to pay off her campaign debt. I think that's why in her speech she directed her supporters to her website, hoping that they will make donations.

But the little donor internet stratey is way too late now.

[crickets]

30. We have a winner! -nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

13. you are going to get ..

smited for that one... :hi:

just an FYI

[windbreeze]

38. absolutely smited...n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Thank you for bringing this up

it was something I hadn't even thought about. Very interesting. I hope you are right about it being big money's last hurrah.

[cascadiance]

16. I think he's onto something, but I think perhaps corporations are investing in an outcome...

... not necessarily Hillary herself.

These big donors are investing in a gravy train for them. They don't necessarily care who's in charge of that gravy train, just that they will continue it for them, and not be as answerable to the people as those in charge are answerable to them.

Whether Hillary wins or not I'm not sure is the issue. It is that either she wins, McCain wins, or she finds a way to be strong part of Obama's administration to keep it in as much check as they can. Though earlier their devil's scenario was Edwards winning, now it is Obama in charge without corporate influence in his VP and other significant executive branch heads.

So, perhaps its not so much that Hillary wins, but that she damages Obama enough through the prolonged campaign, or even being a part of his campaign as VP, they they feel they have a better shot of having McCain win if not her.

Having a prolonged campaign also provides the following other benefits to them:
1) Distracts the American public from other important issues, since they are distracted by this overlong and attention grabbing campaign.
2) The media doesn't have to come up with other distracting issues that make them money (like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears), when they have the campaign instead to do this.
3) A long extensive controversial campaign not only boosts their news media's ratings, but also boosts the amount of campaign spending on ads, etc. that lines their pockets.

In short, whether or not Hillary wins or not, they still benefit from this long campaign, even though America doesn't.

[HamdenRice]

18. "are investing in an outcome"

I agree completely. It's not about Hillary; it's about whatever they wanted from her.

[Mme. Defarge]

29. Spot on!

Hillary, obviously, wants to be president in the worst way (literally), but for her donors it is about stacking the deck in their favor.

I'm still creeped out by the ties that both Hillary's and McCain's campaigns have ties to an electronic voting machine company. My theory is that with a Hillary/McCain contest ther would be no need for election fraud, but they are prepared for all eventualities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. This makes a lot of sense actually

sadly US modern politics are the realm of big money

And if corporations loose their hold on power.... perhaps we will see the end of globalization as it stands right now

Or corporations will go to the next logical step, given some are larger than national economies

[HamdenRice]

21. At least it saves Hillary

from the accusation of being narcisistic or insane.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I don't think she is

was just looking for a RATIONAL explanation to pull a Kennedy (for the youn'ins a reference to the 1980 election cycle)

[HamdenRice]

27. Speaking of Kennedy (also Jesse Jackson) -- what platform plank is she fighting for?

During those races, the losing candidate announced publicly that he would use his delegates and influence to affect the party platform.

I simply haven't heard Hillary articulate that she wants to use her influence or delegates to shape the platform. It seems to be mostly about her being a VP, ie personal position over using her influence for the benefit of some constituency.

[guruoo]

19. "We have an election to win and it isn't against Hillary Clinton."...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6272591

[HeraldSquare212]

20. And they also gave big money to Bill Clinton - he's gonna have a lot of explaining to do.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. What a crock of shit.

What may sound like "big money" from a political point of view is an absolute pittance compared to corporate profits. That's why they play both sides of the aisle. It's as much gambling as it is a form of bribery.

[HamdenRice]

24. Thanks for your evidence

and logical rhetorical phrasing!

Noted.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. I've got as much evidence as the OP.

Show me an instance in modern political history where political donors have "come after" a candidate who lost. Furthermore, show that it's a pattern, as asserted in the OP.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

32. self-delete. dupe.

[Recursion]

26. It's why social conservatives have stayed on message for decades

The "God, gays, and guns" wing of the Republican party has kept itself on message for decades now because it used small donors. Remember that until Dean, we out-raised the GOP in every category of donation except donations from individuals for $20 or less. That's how they could stay on-message. That's how they took over government from the bottom up (1994 only came out of nowhere because the politico class hadn't been watching school boards, city councils, and state legislatures for the previous decade). That's why Dean is right and McAuliffe is wrong.

[IsItJustMe]

28. Light bulbs started going off in my head when I read this post. This makes a lot of sense.

Something isn’t right here. You know it. I know it and by now the whole damn country knows it.

[crickets]

31. Thank you, Howard Dean. -nt

[gristy]

33. Caldwell's argument makes no sense to me

Donors give to a campaign knowing that their candidate may not get nominated. Once Clinton failed to get the nomination, she is off the hook. Like any gamble where the gambler lost.

If the "promise" from one candidate is so important for a donor's bottom line, said donor donates to the other candidate too.

[chill_wind]

34. Just go back to the money people who tried to threaten Pelosi.

See:

By Hook or by Crook: Clinton's big-money donors don't like this "we the people" shit.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Poll_Blind/110

And one of them very close to the top of the list is STILL trying to pressure Clyburn/Congress this very day for her VP ride.
I've been blathering about it all day.

Damn right they want something for their money.

[LordJFT]

35. but what's it matter now, she got the money, who's to say she has to fulfill the promises?

[Ian_rd]

37. This seems like a weak theory.

Corporations give to candidates who lose all the time. What "world of trouble" are you talking about? Is she going to get roughed up by a corporate Luca Braci? Hillary can deliver many promises as a powerful Senator who's in the same party as the president. And for that reason, these corporations might be miffed that their candidate lost, but they will continue to be friendly with Hillary and continue to fund her campaigns precisely because of that. For corporations, politics is like any other investment. They put their money where they think will make it grow. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

She is staying in for one reason: ego. She just ... can't .... accept that the voters chose someone else.