- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton's High-Priced Political Consultants
February 22, 2008 1:18 PM
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Is Howard Wolfson worth 22 Robert Gibbses?
Wolfson and Gibbs are the communications directors for the remaining Democratic presidential contenders -- Wolfson for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Gibbs for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
The latest campaign finance figures show that Wolfson was paid $266,000 for his services last month. Gibbs, meanwhile, makes $144,000 a year -- $12,000 a month, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times on Friday.
The two men come to their jobs with vastly different experiences and portfolios. Gibbs came straight from Obama's Senate office, while Wolfson is a more seasoned political operative who suspended a lucrative career in the private sector to work for Clinton, whom he serves as a top-level adviser in addition to managing her communications operations.
But the disparity in pay speaks to a larger truth about the Democratic race: Clinton is burning through money faster than she can raise it, while Obama continues to sock cash away even while out-spending Clinton on advertising in key states.
Obama raised $36 million in January, and spent $29.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the same month, Clinton raised $13.9 million and had to float herself a $5 million loan; she spent $27.7 million -- just $2 million less than Obama, even though she was out-raised by more than a 2-1 margin.
And what she's spending the money on is raising eyebrows. She spent $95,000 on groceries at a Hy-Vee discount supermarket in West Des Moines, Iowa -- supplying her caucus supporters with deli trays, in a contest she ultimately lost to Obama.
The New York Times reported Friday that the firm of her top strategist, Mark Penn, has billed the campaign for more than $10 million in consulting, direct mail, and other services, including $3.8 million in January alone.
Obama has his high-priced consultants as well -- top strategist David Axelrod's firm has raked in $1.2 million so far -- but Obama appears able to afford it: With a superior online fundraising operation, Obama continues to raise well in excess of $1 million a day, according to his campaign.
February 22, 2008 in Bush, George W., Kucinich, Dennis, Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (119)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
My Son is Active Duty Military, lets bring our Sons and Daughters Home from Iraq, Vote Obama March 4th!
Posted by: Mom First | Feb 22, 2008 1:54:52 PM
I'm sure if Hillary had control over the US budget things would be different.
Posted by: Radmanaustin | Feb 22, 2008 1:55:55 PM
Radmanaustin; Your right things would be different she would have us, still in the poor house 4 years from now!
Posted by: The Patriot | Feb 22, 2008 2:00:03 PM
Hillary get prepared to accept another crown of defeat.
How can you spend more than you raise? And yet you are claming Bush of ditching the country in a pithole by over-expending.
Please anyone out there, educate the elders (65 years and above) as they are the ones mainly voting for her.
Posted by: Peace | Feb 22, 2008 2:00:52 PM
If Hillary is elected President, then the us deficit will be part of the guiness books. US will be borrowing money from North korea, Iran, China, Mali, Kenya, Liberia and Lybia. A lady who cannot manage her campaign will not be able to manage the US economy or her own governement, period.
Posted by: BKMC | Feb 22, 2008 2:08:04 PM
If the delegate count after Wisconsin wasn't the knock out punch, these reports of campaign mismanagement are, I think.
Remember, Obama can absorb blow-out losses on March 4, and go on to the next contests with a still-commanding though smaller delegate lead. Clinton may not be able to do this, even if she wins big in a week and a half.
And it looks like neither Texas or Ohio is promising for a big Clinton win.
Posted by: Paul | Feb 22, 2008 2:23:24 PM
If Obama wasn't such a puppet (like Bush) I might vote for him. But I want change, real change. Someone who will stand up to the establishment, not bow to them.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 22, 2008 2:26:54 PM
It is time to say Bye Clinton and we do appreciate your service!
Posted by: John Elias | Feb 22, 2008 2:37:31 PM
"I'm sure if Hillary had control over the US budget things would be different."
Like what? Deli-trays for all? Hillary can't manage her own campaign - more money and responsibilities will enhance her ability?
Posted by: MidwestIowa | Feb 22, 2008 2:50:45 PM
If you can't successfully run your own national campaign - how in god's name can you run the country?? Can any Hillary supporters explain that to me?? If Obama runs the country that way he is smoothly running his campaign we should be A-OK
Posted by: liberalOhio | Feb 22, 2008 2:52:56 PM
I find it ironic that so many of you think Obama will do better with the economy than Hillary can. What do you think Obama is going to do about unemployment, social security and the deficit? Obama is not Superman, and as soon as he gets in office and screws up most of you will turn your backs on him just like you've done every other president. Obama is not a saviour people!
Posted by: Martin | Feb 22, 2008 2:57:27 PM
Last night debate Hillary was the best, Obama too boring. RNC noticed it. They will make a weapon of it/capitalized it as the weakest candidate ever. No agenda, a copycat repeating what Hillary spoke about, and could not wait his turn to answer always raising his finger to talk. About what? Obama's body's gesture showed a sign of weakness. Can we afford to have a commander in chief like him? What a disaster for America. Hope people will wake up and see the reality.
Obama is media created hype. He is not ready to lead this country. I will vote for Clinton. Thank you.
Posted by: VJ | Feb 22, 2008 2:58:24 PM
And we're supposed to trust her to run things better in the White House? One of the important things about being president is surrounding yourself with a high caliber of people who are responsible on all levels. Hillary has certainly not done that within her campaign and she has continuously mismanaged funds,but... um...we're supposed to assume she'll do fine with our country? Also, on a personal side note, Mark Penn gives me the creeps every time he opens his mouth or I read something by him.
Posted by: jsb | Feb 22, 2008 2:59:50 PM
Becky.....I'm with you 100%. I've always voted Democratic; however if Obama is the nominee I will cross over and vote for McCain. At least we know what were getting. Everyone is singing the Obama Change song. I can't wait for him to fall from grace!
Posted by: Martin | Feb 22, 2008 2:59:53 PM
This was a good article, as it brought up something I haven't read elsewhere. (too many stories are repeats) It does seem telling that Clinton seems to be spending her money unwisely. Just compare the expense for top strategist for the two campaigns, Clinton has spent $10 million dollars for the services of her top strategist's firm, while Obama has only spent $1.2 million dollars, according to this story. That is a huge difference. Obama knows how to get his moneysworth during his campaign bodes well for how he will decide to spend our tax dollars as our president. As an aside, I just read a very detailed, researched blog comparing the legislative successes of Clinton and Obama in an article at dailykos.com by someone called Grassroots Mom. She very throughly read through all the legislation each candidate has put forward, introduced and passed at the Library of Congress Website. Obama's quality of legislation, the number of important co-sponsors he got from both sides of the aisle and success in passing his bills was very impressive, while Hillary's was not. Why can't the media report on this information, it is all public, all easily accessible on Library of Congress's website? Are there a shortage of true journalists? Thanks to Grassroots Mom, whoever she is, for taking the two hours to research and list the bills each candidate passed. The list is further evidence that Obama is the much better candidate.
Posted by: Lydia | Feb 22, 2008 3:04:16 PM
TIred of this – Hillary don’t inspire people like he does and his whole campaign is on speeches and nothing else. She also got some hate folks against her
Posted by: phil | Feb 22, 2008 3:07:29 PM
Obviously Economics 101 wasn't Hillary's best subject. Wonder what her plan is to straighten out her own financial affairs before tackling the national budget. Perhaps she intends to pop in on the Senate floor for a moment, and add some more earmarks for her defense industry and pharmaceutical backers in exchange for more donations.
Posted by: GC | Feb 22, 2008 3:09:41 PM
At this point - I think the idea of united the two is dead. There is too much bad blood between each campaigns supporters and followers. Question now will be: Does Obama have the substance to defeat McCain - and discussing Change in Washington is good, but he has to produce a plan! McCain is no small time politican.
Posted by: BronxBoy7117 | Feb 22, 2008 3:15:24 PM
Lydia: I saw that too. And I was astonished. Here is a woman who's whole campaign is how she has "35 yrs" experiance...yet in those 35 yrs what has she done? The few yers that Obama was in the Senate he did a laundry list of legislative bills. What that says to me is, even tho this man may lack experiance, he has done what Hillary was cleary incapable of. ANd I for one would feel alot more comfrtable with him in the WH.
Posted by: Michelle | Feb 22, 2008 3:28:26 PM
Sorry for the mis-spellings..keys are sticking! ;-)
Posted by: Michelle | Feb 22, 2008 3:30:18 PM
Post a comment



