It's the Perks Stupid!

[NoHitlery]

The Clinton's are finally wearing out their welcome! Thank God!

HILLARY PLACED SECOND
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on April 6, 2007.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
Hillary and Bill have made an unpleasant discovery over the past three months: Without the ability to pass out coveted goodies, like over-nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, invitations to White House coffees and state dinners, trips on Air Force One, weekends at Camp David, lucrative government contracts, top appointments, and the power to sign or veto legislation, their ability to raise money is far less than it once was.
That’s one of the key reasons why Hillary came in second in fund-raising for the first quarter.
For years, people have wondered whether the Clinton money machine was based on ideology and personal loyalty, or just the plethora of presidential perks at Bill’s disposal. The first quarter results give a resounding answer: It’s the perks, stupid.
Coming from nowhere, without any strong pre-existing donor base, Senator Barack Obama’s sensational showing in the first quarter — amassing $25 million in campaign contributions — has left the Clintons sputtering. And his astonishing bottom line is only part of his surprise upset in beating Hillary. While she narrowly edged out the new kid on the political block in the total amount raised, Obama outscored Hillary 2:1 where it really counts: the number of individual donors. This is a big win for Obama and demonstrates both the depth of support for an attractive alternative to Hillary, as well as the finely tuned organizing skills of the first term senator.

In the first three months of 2007, 100,000 people gave Obama money, while Hillary’s fund-raising base was only half as large with 50,000. That’s a big difference, especially when the distant second place went to the former first lady — who, along with her former president husband, has been cultivating fat cat Democrats and building a donor network for more than 16 years. Even with Bill — the man she calls the ‘most popular man in the world’ — working overtime to track down every last Clinton supporter with money, she (and he) could only attract half as many donors than a rookie from Illinois — so much for popularity.
And Obama’s money just keeps on coming! His campaign announced that he raised an additional $500,000 online in the 24 hours since he announced his total on Wednesday. That means that he raised almost $7.5 million to Hillary’s $4 million from online donors. And Obama has added another 4,300 new donors!

Early in the presidential race, the amount of money a campaign has raised matters as much as the number of donors who anted up. You can always go back to your donors and get more money, unless they have already maxed out. An initial $100 donor can become a $500 contributor by the end of the race. Direct mail donors can be re-solicited again and again and online donors keep on giving. So the key is to be able to go back to donors for more. With twice as many donors as Clinton, Obama will be able to raise much more money — much more than the former first lady.
Hillary won’t disclose how many of her donors have reached the maximum of $2200 for the primary, and $2200 for the general election. But, reports of her fund-raising tactics suggest that she squeezed her donors dry. In practical terms, this means that she has fewer donors to go back to for later donations.
So, what happened with Hillary? It’s not that she didn’t pay attention to raising money — she and Bill were working overtime to try and build a definite lead that would clearly establish her as the invincible frontrunner. That didn’t work.
Why doesn’t her frontrunner status and long history of raising big bucks translate into more donors and more money?
One answer may be Clinton’s solicitation fatigue. The Clintons are always knocking at the door with their hands out. Donors may be very tired of the constant phone calls from Chappaqua – for the Clinton Library, the Tsunami, Katrina, Hillary’s Senate campaign, Bill’s birthday, HILLPAC, Bill’s Global Initiative, etc. etc. When donors see the “914” area code (for Chappaqua) on their caller ID, they may understandably cringe and not answer. Soon, the donors may be asking their Public Service Commission to put Bill and Hillary on their no-call list!
But the most significant reason that the Clintons didn’t hit a home run in the first quarter may be due to the fact that they don’t have any more perks to hand out. The Clintons brought new meaning to presidential fund-raising by giving donors free reign of the White House. From Johnnie Chung to David Geffen, they handsomely rewarded their donors with an open door policy. Now, they obviously can’t do that.
And, at this rate, they may not be able to do it again the future either.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN DICKMORRISREPORTS!
TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:

[nohil-billy]

Still worried WiseOne?

[NoHitlery]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

Still worried WiseOne?

Google The Logan Act: Pelosi has committed a felony. If Gonzales wasn't in such deep imagined shi*t he could go after her. For those of you that are lazy, i.e. any liberal that is reading this post, The Logan Act makes it a felony to pretend like one is Jimmy Carter and represent oneself as having the authorization of the President in foreign affairs.

Even Hill and Bill are sad with what she is doing!

[PeroW-Cheney]

Forget the perks that get sold for campaign contributions...

Maybe the Chinese National Army doesn't need our nuclear missle specs anymore. Or maybe George Soros knows a bad investment when he smells one. Hillary must have forgotten to tap into those Buddhist monks. You know, the ones who take a vow of poverty for life, yet manage to contibute a hundred grand apiece? Hilary needs more "community outreach".

[nohil-billy]

No first term president has ever had white house perks so Dick Morris' arguement isn't very plausible. Hillary Clinton is not electable because she's a shrill, waffling, arrogant, elitist, socialist bit*ch with more baggage than American Airlines at Thanksgiving.

She jumped out as the front runner because of name recognition and the political novelty of being the first (perceived) legitimate female candidate. As time passes, the left is seeing her for what she is and knows that at any moment a bomb could drop out of her past and unravel everything. She no longer has the protection provided by the rule that you don't attack the first lady. There are a lot of unanswered questions pertaining to the scandals of Slick's administration that she was involved in. These will eventually come under scrutiny and will be her undoing. Would you contribute to her campaign?

[Herb Schaffler]

There are also some pending court cases that may come up. Both her and Bill have been served with subpenos to testify in a court case pertaining to illegal fund raising in her senate campaign of 2000. Their lawyers are doing everything they can to have the case dropped or at least have the case delayed until after the election. From what I've read, there are smoking guns showing that Hillary knew of and approved of the illegal fund raising and misreporting of those funds.

[NoHitlery]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

No first term president has ever had white house perks so Dick Morris' arguement isn't very plausible. Hillary Clinton is not electable because she's a shrill, waffling, arrogant, elitist, socialist bit*ch with more baggage than American Airlines at Thanksgiving.

She jumped out as the front runner because of name recognition and the political novelty of being the first (perceived) legitimate female candidate. As time passes, the left is seeing her for what she is and knows that at any moment a bomb could drop out of her past and unravel everything. She no longer has the protection provided by the rule that you don't attack the first lady. There are a lot of unanswered questions pertaining to the scandals of Slick's administration that she was involved in. These will eventually come under scrutiny and will be her undoing. Would you contribute to her campaign?

Totally agree and disagree at the same time. That makes me elgible to run for President as a Democrat. Morris' article is very plausible because the "Kling-Ons" that supported her first quarter fund raising, all 50,000 of them most probably slept in the same bed at the same time in the Lincoln Bedroom. She is running out of big donors to tap. They know what we know. Unfortunately, for her and them, you capture it too well in the second part of your argument. I would donate a used cigar to her campaign.

[nohil-billy]

I can agree with that NH. I was looking at it more from the point of view that she is at no disadvantage because her democratic rivals don't have WH perks to offer either. I strayed from the subject matter, sorry!