Why a loan? If she's committed to this then give the money to the campaign but don't expect to get it back. I don't care if she wants to spend her own money. I don't think a candidate loan should be allowed. Do the people donating next month know the money will go to pay her back personally rather than to further the campaign?

chris: Word that! Financing your own campaign is once thing - people have done it for years. But expecting people to pay you back for your bid is another, just like keeping unspent campaign contributions. It's just another con game by the masters of malfeasance.

Ok so she LOANED her campaign her own money and is asking others to GIVE her money for HER campaign when she won't even give her moeny to it? She wants it all back, that sure speaks of character and lack of selfishness(note the sarcasm.)

John H; Grapevine, Tx,
I agree with you mate. Perhaps the mistake was in the wording! For her to say loan, looks bad because as you've stated these are wealthy people. Even if they do plan on stealing it back, loan is not the right word. Here you have so many people struggling and she is asking for a handout. Something is wrong with that picture.

Due to the nature of the campaign they have run thus far, I share the sentiments of those that state this is a total scam or ploy.

Having stated that, I can't believe people are still riding the Hillary wave. Suckers.

Hillary Romney-Clinton.

How do we know that this money is not co-mingled with Bill's money, including his speaking or consulting fees from foreign governments?

Would this not be classified as another predatory subprime loan? Please advise.

Obama spent over 83 million by the end of 2007; this could explain his gain in the polls.

Back off Terry.

When Mitt put in his estimated over 50 Mil into campaign, we did not hear anything about "loan." Think about it.

A loan would later have to be repaid to her by the DNC, I think she is now gambling. You don't see Mitt or any of the others (borrowing) there is a con at work here. Does anyone remember her investment in that Ponsi scam back in the 90's thru her brothers the Rodhmans while they I believe were in the White House. It got burried on page two just like all their other un American ventures. IMO

Whe a political campain is not financed by supporters then it is no more a campain and in this presnt scenario it should be called buying the presidency of the US as Romney is trying to do. That is very bad for democracy,liberty and freedom.

I think too much is being read into the word "loan". I think that is natural speech. Also that does not mean the campaign is broke. What she said is "we intended to be competitive" she needed to be able to hit as many markets as he was in a close race while still having money for what was ahead. That is the problem with this race mountains out of mole hills. I woul love Obamas words to be as closely checked and then maybe it word be a fair assessment.

This is what Bill Clinton said in December of 2007...

"They say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform."

Clinton hypocracy?

It was closer than Clinton would like people to think.

TOTAL VOTES CAST on 2/5/08
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

Less than 60,000 votes difference, a far cry from that 20 point lead she had a couple of months ago. the surge is working people, don't slow down now.

Posted by: Terry | Feb 6, 2008 5:07:14 PM,
""She can always convert the load to a donation at a latter date. Making it a loan is probably the way it had to be recorded to be legal. I can't believe all the stupid comments folks are making here about a loan. Get a life!""

. People have financed their own campaigns for a long time, going all the way to Rockefeller and none of them have LOANED their campaigns money. It's stupid to loan your campaign money.

Convert it to a donation at a later time? Why wait? Do it now. Does she not have CONFIDENCE in herself?!

Running for office is a risk. As another poster so correctly stated, sometimes it pays off but not all the time. She can't have it both ways.

I don't care what she does. I don't care what any of you do. But, it sure tells me a great deal about someone that would ask for money when they have their own. She is at the finish line, she can't pull herself across?

Just like I've said all along, this campaign is all about Hillary and what Hillary wants. She wants to be C&C and she wants supporters to pay for it.

I applaud the decision to loan but it would rather be better to give it all. It’s part of the sacrifice. Hillary why telling us now rather than before?

For those of you that had any doubts that Obama has what it takes to turn our economy around, bear this in mind...he already got $5 million of the Clinton's scandal tainted fortune cleaned and back into the American economy. How's that for an Obama instant economic stimulus package?

Obama clearly won, in terms of engagement and motivating independents (like me) to become Dems so they could vote for him in the Caucus. Hillary deals with the sheep, Obama creates Dems.. very different Paradigm. If hillary hadn''t been married to Bill, would we even know who she is??? I think not. NOthing remarkable about her... yes, she does good works, or tries to, but she is making less money, many many less donors, and much of her cash comes from the political "machine" most of us want to KILL! Obama gets a little money from HUGE numbers of people, that should say something. And us donors can give more, where Hills are tapped out (few giving the max, that tap is DRY!).. THUS she loans her campaign 5Mil!

I just hope Bill Gates does not run for office any time soon. His competition will have no hope of raising funds close to his. If the people really believe in a candidate they will donate and invest in them. Hillary you are a cheat..to me this is the same as a Rich kid paying his college fees versus a ordinary kid working two jobs to pay his tuition.

It doesn't seem right to me either to put up your own money as a loan, either give it freely or not.
The bottom line is that Obama raised more money from all his small, mostly ordinary donors, while Hillary took corporate donations to build her war chest. She will not represent us regular folks, but will owe the corporate world her loyalty.
And does anyone know why the delegate counts are so different among the news sources? Msnbc showed Obama ahead of Clinton in delgates.