The Time Bomb in Hillary Clinton's Bank Account

Her lost then....I won't shed a tear for her on that count.

I've donated to Obama's campaign. I would not appreciate that money being used to pay off Clinton's debt. I gave that money to Obama so he could use it to win the nomination and win the general election, not give it to his opponents.

I suspect that other Obama contributors would not be OK with this either.

No wait, I have to expand on that. HRC had the benefit of the deep pockets she and Bill have built over these least few years. She has clearly taken advantage to sustain her campaign. But not only has she insisted to proceed with her campaign while losing in the delegate count and popular vote, she also will throw her money in even when she can't get the public at large to contribute.

She loves to talk about how many people want to see her win the nomination. She just can't get them to vote for her or contribute to her campaign. How much more arrogant do you have to be to keep things going AND attack her Democrat in the process. Hey, you want to spend the money, be prepared to lose it.

As previously pointed out, Obama cannot legally transfer more than $2,000 from his campaign treasury. It sounds to me like Clinton is up the creek without a paddle.

Obama cannot legally transfer more than $2,000 from his campaign treasury. It sounds to me like Clinton is up the creek without a paddle.

With a mere $80 million in family earnings and a Senate seat as consolation.

(You're right, Keith Hood, I just think it's worth pointing out that she's really not in awful shape, all things considered).

Karen: I simply don't understand this post. The Clintons have money. Hillary entered this race with all kinds of cash and used it. If she ends up with a deficit why shouldn't she deal with it? What is this about candidates? They want to get into a race and then want someone else to pay for it when things don't pan out.

I don't know where we get this idea that someone can spend all kinds of money, lose and then expect others to retire the debt. This kind of sense of entitlement I can do without.

By the way, has Hillary asked anyone to help pay her debts? I have no problem with that because if one chooses to help that is a personal decision. Meanwhile I don't see why this is an issue.

Nathan,

Obama can't give anything more than $2,500 to HRC's campaign from his fund, that's the law. So you have nothing to worry about. Only thing he can do is beseech his donors to give to HRC or headline fundraisers for her. Either way, it will be upto to each donor to decide if he/she wants to help people who foolishly spent their money and are worth over hundred million.

I have to imagine that HRC knew it was a possibility she wouldn't see that money again. Why do we collectively feel responsible for managing her bank account? I get it that it affects her ability to run, but worrying so extensively about the money she stands to lose strikes me as infantalizing.

OT:
Here's an editorial by Bob Novak where he refers to an Obama presidency as being a Biblical plague inflicted on America for its people's sins:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101786_pf.html

My question is: Does anyone know if this is a widely held viewpoint among evangelicals? Why?

Or, is Novak just making things up?

I gave $100 to Obama and don't want to see any going to Clinton and were there to be such a move would have to reconsider further donations. Not a good idea. Let Disney and Miramax and the Columbians and the Indian outsourcing corporate Clintonistas pay up.

Karen - This issue appears to be getting an enormous amount of air time and yet it is speculation of a deal of which both sides claim they are not a part. So here's my question(s):

Is this how these deals get worked out - in public and by journalists and surrogates? Is the media taking the part of third-party mediation while the two parties remain on opposite sides of the table without speaking to one another?

I am still trying to figure out why we are talking about this. Unless this is some kind of synchronized kubuki dance to mediate an actual settlement it makes no sense.

It will be interesting to see if she pays herself back with the campain contributions she is and will be getting. In essence telling her supports she can still win this thing but in the end, making sure she doesn't loose anything.

Looking back at how they "paid" thier legal bills, they will have no qualms about letting others take the financial risks. I know all politicians do these things, but it seems unseemly to ask people to reach deep and give to the campaign when they are very wealthy and have almost limitless earning power.

KT here--

Terra: I've talked to a number of sources on the Obama campaign today, and they are pretty clear that they expect Obama to be helping her out with her debts at some point along the way. And Obama himself has said as much. I've tried to clarify how this might work by adding an update to my post. But as always, please let me stipulate that there are certainly some quirks in the law that I am not aware of. I didn't know about this personal loan business until someone mentioned it to me today. A former official of the FEC then confirmed it, and pointed me to the right section of the law.

I'm sure Obama could give Hillary some of the big Oil money he received to help her pay down her debt. This way he wouldn't need to worry in the GE that he did accept money from Oil type donors to his campaign.

KT,
You quote the legislation that states that she must be repaid (except for $250,000) before the "date of the election." Presumably that is the general election in November, so it would seem that she has until Nov, not the convention, to recoup her losses.

Cliff -

All I have to know os Novak wrote it to guess that it's probably not worth much.

Cliff,
It would seem the Bush presidency has already been a Biblical plague on America (and the world).

I gave $100 to Obama and don't want to see any going to Clinton and were there to be such a move would have to reconsider further donations. Not a good idea.

OK, once more with feeling: Obama. Cannot. Donate. More. Than. The. Federal. Limit. Of. Twenty. Three Hundred. Dollars. To. The. Clinton. Campaign.

He will hold fundraisers for her and ask his donors to make new contributions to her. If you don't want to donate to her you don't have to. The money you donated to Obama previously is not going to now be funneled to the Clintons.

I find it interesting how many commenters feel that having x-millions of dollars exempts people from worrying about money.

In a rational world, this might be the case but among the articulate apes that inhabit THIS particular planet, it doesn't work that way.

The issue over how much money millionaires deserve to keep is of course the second most contentious issue that separates the two parties in theis country (the first being whether the act starting a war should be rewarded or punished.)

This is also OT, but I see this posted on RCP:

"Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr announced today his intentions to represent the Libertarian Party in a run for the presidency. He will first have to win the nomination at the party convention, being held next weekend. His competition is former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who was previously a candidate for the Democratic nomination."

So does this mean Gravel has finally dropped out of the Democratic race? Last I heard he was still a candidate.

My previous comment also reminded me of something else:
Shouldn't they put Ron Paul's picture back on the Swampland banner, considering that he probably just won move votes in Indiana and NC than Obama will in WV?

Even if she loses, Hillary Clinton will still be a Senator after all this is over; there will be plenty of special interests who might see it in their interest to help her through this financial squeeze.

Is this the rationale by which HRC's loans / debt are of national interest? Because politicians are prone to corruption? (Which are we talking about here, anyway, loans or debt? There's like a $9 million difference.)

Why do I get the feeling that HRC's bank account has become the equivalent of her nightstand drawer?

As a working class, middle-age caucasion in a Southern State, I can't imagine that the champion of us po' folk would ask us to chip in to the personal account of somebody who has some $80 million in the bank, would she?

Why do I get the feeling that HRC's bank account has become the equivalent of her nightstand drawer?

Wow, every once in a while the cries of sexism from Clinton's supporters really do ring true. You stay classy, Acid J.

Cheers (I think) FastEddie

Should have said "substitute for" rather than "equivalent of." But, you know, just trying to wrap my head around the ideological underpinnings of our national discourse, esp. when Mark Halperin is cited as its source. Ultimately, though, I'm for Obama.

KT here--

Malcolm: In this case, the "election" (as explained to me by Bob Lenhard, who was until recently the chairman of the FEC) is the primary race, which concludes when the nominee formally accepts the nomination at the convention.

The most constructive way to resolve this would be for Obama to commission a few dozen lectures by Bill Clinton on the history of racial politics in America with special reference to electoral campaigns. Ten lectures at $100k a piece would retire Clinton's debt in excess of her own personal loans.

Why do I get the feeling that HRC's bank account has become the equivalent of her nightstand drawer?

That's funny because it's offensive.

COMMENT: SUSANM

I SAID A MONTH AGO, SHE'S NUTS TO PUT THAT KIND OF HER OWN MONEY INTO A CAMPAIGN?

NOW SHE "BURNT" AND I'M A HAPPY GO LUCKY PERSON

WHAT GOES AROUND HILLARY, COMES AROUND?

NOW BILLY-BOY WILL HAVE TO MAKE SPEACHES, WRITE A BOOK, OR WORK IN THE FIELDS, OF NO RETURN.

After the spectacle of this ongoing yokel tour through Appalachia, hiring Bill Clinton to speak at your future event is not going to carry quite the same cachet it once did, and his fee is going to take a huge and irreparable hit as a result

Cranky comment.

But I've had a long day.

We've now a very valuable examination of the campaign finance law with regard to the personal interests of the Clintons--of their being able to legally reclaim money they've lent to HRC's campaign.

Where is the equivalently thorough, thoughtful analysis of FECA 74, as amended, to McCain's campaign? Where is the story about the DNC lawsuits? About McCain possibly facing jailtime? About the loophole that has McCain flying on his Sugar Momma's corporate jet at well below market cost?

Isn't McCain more newsworthy? Isn't he the putative nominee? Why is the losing candidate Clinton the focus of scrutiny?

Well, honestly, BFD.

This is a lot of money for you or me (or maybe even Joe), but the Big Dog can make this back in a month or two of speeches.

Jay,

It's pretty simple really. A lot of people really, really don't like the Clintons. You don't get negative ratings over 50% easily. Lots of people like the shadenfreude (sp?). Also, a large number of people are pretty unhappy with the prospect of Obama helping pay down Clinton's debts. All of these make for compelling reading that people WANT to see/read/hear reports on.

McCain's problems are largely dry legalistic bank lending financial numbers stuff that can make people's eyes glaze over. Or, in the case of his plane, a lot of people might wonder how him using his wife's plane is different than Romney or Clinton funding their own campaigns.

So on the one hand, you have a story about "little people" potentially being forced to pay down a "fat cat's" debt, vs. a story about some old guy and loan guarantee's that may be illegal depending on financing dates and some committee that needs more appointees.

I'm not saying the McCain stories aren't more important, just that there isn't a good narrative for them that's easily accessible, and the meat of them isn't really that interesting either.

Karen - Thanks for your reply.

I suppose you are right; this story is worth speculating about. Still, the manner in which the terms of her surrender are being worked out is fascinating to me. Without a single meeting of the primary players (unless it took place in secret), the details are debated through surrogates, pundits and commentators in the blogs and newspapers of the world. It is all very open-source! It is like watching a gymnasium of fourth-graders solve a complex math problem by shouting tips and hints to eachother in realtime. And I mean that in the best way possible.

I have been expecting her to run a minimal, positive-cash-flow campaign until she had paid back her debts and then just hang on until the convention where she would bow to the inevitable. But if a suitable deal can come from this then maybe she will fold early.

She's got 3 weeks to go until the primaries are over. Barring a shocking upset in WV or KY she'll hang on at least until then. If she were ready to quit now she would've done so already.

Ok, here's the deal. Obama can't give any of his election bucks to Hillary. What he can do is help raise money for Hillary via fundraisers etc. Apparently not many were paying attention but this was made apparent as soon as the subject was raised. Of course he can't give money to Hillary from those who want to see her burned in oil along with her no account husband.

jay et al.,

You probably never read the WIP blog, but you might find this interesting:

http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/time_100_party_gets_someone_fi.html

So FOX News will fire someone for this, but TIME still retains MS and AMC. Are you telling me that FOXNews has higher standards?

Malcolm-This is kind of old news. The girl was like 19 or 20 years old and obviously not in the game, if you will. You aren't really comparing the young ladies enthusiasm to MS and AMC's anti Malcolm transgressions, are you? I mean really.

I find it interesting how many commenters feel that having x-millions of dollars exempts people from worrying about money.
In a rational world, this might be the case but among the articulate apes that inhabit THIS particular planet, it doesn't work that way.

Well, sure.

But I still find it unseemly that Clinton is out on the stump asking waitresses and other working class people, most of whom do not make a lot of money, to go to Hillary.com and donate to her campaign.

Bill can earn the money back fairly quickly, and even if he doesn't, they've still got, what? at least $50 million left?

That's more money than I'll ever see in my lifetime.

BTW, when Obama says he's willing to help her pay her debts, I imagine he means the debts to her vendors.

If I were him I'd draw the line at helping them "replenish the old coffers" as Bush so charmingly (ugh) called it.

And not a penny to the odious Mark Penn.

I'm not saying the McCain stories aren't more important, just that there isn't a good narrative for them that's easily accessible, and the meat of them isn't really that interesting either.

"You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator, or you look at his record in Texas. But it's really easy, and it's fun, to disprove Gore. As sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us."

--Margaret Carlson

it's pretty cool to have $109 million, loan youself a dozen or two mil when your campaign needs to win.

And if you win, you become president of a super power; if you lose, you asks the opponent you spent money fighting, you asks supporters who earns little and have next to nothing... asks them to "repay" your loans to yourself for you.

This head i win, tail you lose thing is quite cool. Seem wrong somehow though.

---

Clinton starts out with all the connections, the prestige, the money any politician could ask for... and lose to a newcomer. Yet somehow she's more qualified to run the economy in trouble. [and she have the gall to ignore those elitist economists when they don't agree with her pandering]

She goes to the best schools money can buy, the wife of a governor then a president, have few mansions and some $100 million... and she's not an elite, she's your local gal. She can't pump gas but she feels your pain at the pump. She became a senator, a company director etc etc, and somehow she's your every woman fighting the glass ceilings.

Malcolm--

I saw that story, not at WIP. (It's funny to see a term for an intermediate stage of physical inventory between raw and finished used to refer to a buncha pixels.)

If MS or AMC outright endorsed McCain, they'd also get in trouble. I thought it was refreshing when Slate had its writers announce who they were voting for. I'd actually expect both of them to vote for Obama. You can admire McCain's towering intellect but not necessarily want his Supreme Court. It's also especially bad for fox for its employees to announce a gushing preference, because, of course, the network has a gushing prefernce.

I suspect AMC's and MS' vote is compensation for the enabling. "I'm really, in my own life, a pro-choice centrist, voting Democratic. In my professional life, I'm a hard-nosed non-partisan."

There's still no excuse for MS stenographing the McCain 100 years spin. The DNC and Obama have been meticulously careful to use McCain's own words to demonstrate his commitment to an indefinite occupation at an indefinite cost.

jay,
I wasn't really being serious when I suggested that FOX News had higher standards or that MS and AMC should be terminated. But I wonder if MS really will vote for Obama.

But as I argued earlier, I disagree that Obama has always been so careful when quoting (or rather, paraphrasing) McCain's remarks. Recently he has been, though.

Cliff: re Bob Novak's column. Yes, I expect there are a lot of fundamentalists (not necessarily all evangelicals) who do believe that Barack is a false prophet. The question is, will this make them more inclined to vote for him? Some of them are eager for the apocalypse to be ushered in. I'm also thinking some of them may end up with Bob Barr if he's nominated, rather than John McCain.

Acid J: Bill would need 100 or 200 lectures at 100K to pay off 10 or 20 million. That would take a little while. See? He's been working harder than we give him credit for :0).
Don't you suppose his asking price is going to have to go down after Hillary no longer has the prospect of being in the White House?

Karen: Do we have any idea how much of the GE donations already made to Hillary is eligible for paying off primary debt? I would assume that almost all of it is from maxed out primary donors, and therefore can't be used.

Don't you suppose his asking price is going to have to go down after Hillary no longer has the prospect of being in the White House?

No. The price is not for her withdrawal. It is for, among other things, access to her contributors and supporters.

Karen: Do we have any idea how much of the GE donations already made to Hillary is eligible for paying off primary debt? I would assume that almost all of it is from maxed out primary donors, and therefore can't be used.

None, is my understanding. The separation is not just for maxed out money, I believe.

Jay - Karen's post has this bit in the next-to-last paragraph: "To pay off debts from their primary campaigns, candidates can tap general-election funds from contributors who didn't max out in the primary*, with the donor's permission." It appears she might have to do this within 60 days, but I'm not clear about that from the post.

Thanks, Kathy.

campaign finance has more rules than golf...could you imagine if the rest of the world ran like this?? for example,
i just gambled for my entire stay at your hotel CEASAR'S and unfortunately i didn't win. In fact I lost 5000 dollars and I am going to need your help mr casino owner to pay my savings account back.
i know the point of campaign finance is so the least among us have a chance, but it does not achieve that...

nothing short of public financing would achieve that cbh. And it's hard to devise a public financing system.

However, if we are going to give away the broadcast spectrum to private entities, the least they should do is be required to run political advertising for free. That would help some...

The only thing that will really help is what Obama's doing. I suppose you could set the donation limit at 250 dollars and make bundling illegal somehow.

Any effective reform will reduce the incumbency advantage, so you can be sure there will be no effective reform.

Among all the reasons we've heard for why Hillary is staying in the race, I haven't heard the suggestion that she needs to stay in the race in order to postpone the time when the 60 day limit on what she can do financially "after the campaign comes to an end" will begin. But that might well be figuring into it. On the other hand, she continues to incur debt.

I notice the law refers to "personal funds." If John and Cindy McCain keep their personal funds separate, does that mean John can bypass this law to his advantage again by getting Cindy to give him money?

Smedley - good question. I'm assuming that since John and Cindy McCain's aren't joint funds, he can't use her funds anymore than he could use yours. That's part of the problem with his using her plane. He's getting contributions from her that exceed the $2300 she can give if their funds aren't shared.

jay,
yes, i know and i agree. i was just venting my "not enough coffee yet today" after a long night trying to meet some bs arbitrary deadlines from my publishing company...sleep, sweet sweet mistress, how i miss thee...

KathyR-

And who is going to enforce the law? Even if the FEC lacks a quorum, the law is still the law, is it not? Surely some law enforcement agency exists to enforce election law other than the FEC. Hello? Attorney General? Hello?

I think the bigger issue is what does Obama do with all of his excess money when he fails to get the nomination. Does he have to return it? Can he use it in 2008 to support other candidates? It may be complicated.

Karen, doesn't this sort of hackery make you feel dirty? A little shame, at least?

"Among all the reasons we've heard for why Hillary is staying in the race, I haven't heard the suggestion that she needs to stay in the race in order to postpone the time when the 60 day limit on what she can do financially "after the campaign comes to an end" will begin." - Kathy, I think she can just "suspend" her campaign, like Edwards did. That has the added benefit of giving her an excuse not to cede her delegates, in case Obama does something incredibly stupid.

As for the financial hit, I think she's willing to take it, although obviously she will try to recover as much as she can. She had to know the risks involved with lending the campaign so much money. And let's not forget that if she doesn't run for re-election in 2012 - which wouldn't surprise me at all - she could make a lot of money on the speaking circuit, and on corporate boards, etc. Although I would love to see her run in 2012 if Obama loses, the party establishment will probably make sure a white guy is nominated. So I think at this point her career is no longer a stepping stone for anything.

The only exception to that is if she gets the VP nomination and Obama loses, it would be difficult to not nominate her in 2012. She would do a great job in the GE, and suddenly her toughness will seem a lot more appealing when the Democrats are up against the Republicans. But I don't think Obama will give her the VP nomination. I really have no idea what her chances of being Senate Majority Leader are - she won't have Ted Kennedy's support - but obviously that's a great job. And she could actually work with Obama or McCain. That said, it wouldn't surprise me is she goes the Al Gore route and adopts some cause to promote. In fact, if she didn't have to give up her Senate seat that would be the best way to have any chance in 2012, assuming she doesn't get the VP nomination. In addition to her gender, her main problem for 2012 is that a lot of people hate her; The "Andrew Sullivan" propaganda machine has been quite successful among Democrats. But if she travels around the world trying to solve, for example, world hunger the whole "Hillary is evil' thing would fade. People even think Al Gore is almost cool now, so perceptions can change dramatically. And, most importantly, she would be good at it.

rose, rose, rose...you had me until that last sentence...al gore cool?? no no no...the attention al is getting at the cool kids table is not unlike the high school nerd who gains a short modicum of notoriety at the cool kids table because he helped the star qb with his science project....al gore cool, i laughed so hard i snorted.

cbhenderson, Al Gore is so nerdy that he is almost cool. Like Uggs a few years ago, or organic root vegetables.

KT here--

Smedley raises an interestng issue. To the degree that Cindy McCain has personal funds that are not share by her husband, she can donate all of $4,600 of them--$2,300 for the primary; $2,300 for the general--to his campaign. I learned this in 2004, with John Kerry and Teresa Heinz. This is why he mortgaged a house (marital property) to loan himself money to keep going in December 2003.

Rose - as is often true, I mostly agree with you (this offers some hope for the party, I assume!)

I think Hillary would make an outstanding majority leader, but I'm not sure either that she would run, or that she would be elected; more senators have endorsed Barack than Hillary, which has undoubtedly miffed her. The Barack senators might well be afraid of retaliation. But she loves policy, has backbone, speaks on her feet in front of the media. I can see Barack being really grateful for someone who can manage his agenda as well as she could.

I don't think Barack will offer her the VP nomination. I think governing would just be too messy with the spouse of your VP being a former president. He needs to not be diverted by managing those complicated interpersonal relations.

KT here--

If I may jump in here, Rose and KathyR: I think Harry Reid is starting to get a little annoyed by all this talk of HRC taking his place, and don't forget, Dick Durbin has worked hard as whip and is the logical heir. The members of the United States Senate do not consider the job of majority leader to be a consolation prize, and while HRC has been well regarded there, she's relatively junior and not considered a master of the inner workings of the place. In fact, if you look at the leaders they have chosen, they generally are not people with high public profiles or outside followings. That tends to get in the way of the painstaking (and often glory-free) work of "herding cats."

Karen - I hear you about Harry Reid, who I think has done a decent job as majority leader, but who is also a public face of the party, and not always an effective one. Makes me cringe more often than I'd like. I'd be really happy with Dick Durbin.

Also - who, as Smedley asks, would enforce the law if McCain is breaking it by use of Cindy's plane? I'm going to assume (without any knowledge) that the FEC usually refers potential charges, and that without a fully constituted FEC nobody would be in charge. But Howard Dean is certainly going to pursue it if there's any reasonable possibility.

Jay: Is this what you're referring to with "About McCain possibly facing jailtime?"

KT, thanks for the info on Reid and Durbin. Is running for Governor of NY more realistic?

Kathy, I agree about Obama not offering her the VP nomination. Also, if the campaign does go badly - which I expect and fear - he wouldn't like having his political heir outshining him on the campaign trail, with more precise and biting attacks on McCain. And that is definitely not a criticism of Obama; HRC would probably put her VP nominee on 24/7 bunker duty in similar circumstances! But since she is so much the opposite of Obama as a campaigner, if things go badly for Obama the media and others will talk about how Clinton's sharper and more detailed style of campaigning is better suited to the GE. Everyone loves to second-guess.

I would have thought differently two days ago, but I read a fascinating Chris Bowers' post yesterday on VP picks that changed my thinking:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5713

His basic theory is that if you choose a balancing candidate who has different strengths and weaknesses - like Clinton - you risk your own weaknesses being highlighted. I think he takes his logic a little too far - Cheney was a good pick for Bush politically - but he definitely has a point.

KathyR,

Answering for Jay, under McCain-Feingold some election finance violations are felonies. If McCain did violate the law, he could be charged with a felony and if convicted, could potentially face jail time.

Rose - and Bill Clinton's pick of Al Gore was counterintuitive and unconventional. He picked another young southerner, and that turned out to present a confident picture of a generational change.

Rose,
I have to disagree with you on HRC as VP. I think her best chance to become President someday, aside from serving as Obama's VP, is for BHO to lose this election, leaving her as the next in line in 2012. So long as she is not blamed for his loss, she can say, "I told you so," especially if he does poorly in the Rust Belt and among her demographic groups (i.e., the elderly, Catholics, Hispanics, and hard-working white people). But if she were run with him and lose, then she would be tainted, as Edwards is. That's probably the main reason why you don't hear much call for him as VP now, even though he would make an excellent complement to Obama, probably better than Hillary.

Malcolm, where I disagree is that Edwards did a terrible job as the VP nominee. I really liked Edwards, and I was thrilled that Kerry picked him as VP. But he was a bad campaigner, and he did badly in the debate. Also, he just didn't seem to want it enough. Since Clinton would probably do an amazing job as a VP candidate, her reputation wouldn't be tainted by a loss the same way Edwards' was.

But I still think that he won't and shouldn't pick her. And if Obama loses a white guy will probably get the nomination next, so it's hard to see her ever becoming the Democratic nominee.

Although I suppose 2016 is a very faint possibility, especially since a 68 year-old woman is younger than a 68 year-old man.

Rose,
I agree that Edwards was terrible as a VP candidate. And not so great as a Presidenial one either. I just meant that he seems like a better complement on paper, not least because he wouldn't overshadow the top of the ticket.

I have to admit, I'd be really curious to see her have a go at McCain and the Rethugs. I wouldn't mind her attacks nearly as much if it wasn't friendly fire. It's a shame she hasn't devoted more of her campaign to going after him.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4