Pancake City

I try not to become too involved with politics during Presidential elections, but I can’t help it. I didn’t really realize how much I’m into following politics at times until I made a tag cloud of all of my writing for the past four years, and “politics” came up as the #1 tag.

The following is a comment I left on a favorite political site of mine, The Washington Note, that became long enough to deserve its own post. Steve Clemons, the author of TWN, has some really good writing on foreign policy with a level of detail beyond what usually appears in a newspaper, and some interesting thoughts on the election, especially in his criticism of the candidates.

It is about the news today (Wednesday) that Hillary Clinton lent $5 million dollars to her campaign early in January. I’m not sure who if anyone will be interested in such a insider politics topics, so this is also a good opportunity for me to try out the “Read the rest” option.

I’m going to go 180 degrees against conventional wisdom and say this is a positive development for Clinton’s campaign. Part of this is playing devil’s advocate, but hear me out.

Here are the possible positive effects of the loan.

1. It makes it easier to lower expectations and portray herself as an underdog, which will skew media coverage in her favor. She is expected to have a rough February and a good March with the upcoming schedule, so this is just the thing she needs to realistically lower expectations for February. If this is true, the timing of the announcement–the day after Super Tuesday–is perfect.

2. It may launch a “rally the base” effect that encourages a rush of donations from her supporters in a way that a typical “We need your help” fundraising email can’t.

3. It gives her the beginning of a story, her greatest weakness in comparison to Obama. One could argue that campaigns are more about having a compelling story than one’s position of the issues. McCain has a story. Obama has a story. Clinton–what’s her story? What’s her rise from adversity? I feel confident that if Clinton ends up winning the nomination, or even makes it out of February in good shape, she will proudly refer to this moment and use it as a selling point to illustrate her resilience and personal commitment.

I don’t see too many negatives with this news coming out. Her position is strong enough that while it may get a few political junkies questioning the health of her campaign, it won’t start a “Hillary is collapsing” media narrative. Not that a narrative like that would even have much of an effect in this race–the connection between media perception and how people vote has been tenuous in the Democratic campaign. Having the finances to donate money to your campaign can be a huge advantage, as Michael Bloomberg, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, and Eliot Spitzer can attest. It doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s certainly not a negative.

I think the Clintons are getting a 2-for-1 deal here: a boost of cash and a viable argument that she is the underdog, much more valuable than the often ethereal benefits of momentum that Obama may get from this development.

P.S. To somewhat contradict my own point, if this is part of a pre-planned, I think the Clintons made a significant error in underestimating the potential disappointment’s of some of Obama’s supporters after coming into Super Tuesday with a ton of momentum and leaving with a draw. This story will certainly put wind in their sails for the next month.