home

Hillary Raises $4 Million Online Since Tuesday

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:58 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

36 hours, $4 million online raised by Hillary. Not bad.

She's now trying for $6 million in 48 hours.

< Dean: FL And MI "Not Our Problem" | Austin, TX Mayor Charged in and Admits Assault: >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Raises $4 Million Online Since Tuesday | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Great News! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    In fact, the website says 3.6M.  So again, where are BO's February numbers already!

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    where are those numbers? I think they are disappointing now.

    Parent
    It would be hard for them not to be (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    even if they're very good. They do a terrible job with expectations. They've largely run an okay campaign otherwise, but on the expectation plane they constantly screw up.

    Frankly, I'm impressed by all of the Dem fundraising this year, but the Obama campaign's need to constantly break all records just to avoid disappointment is a nasty little box from which they still haven't escaped.

    Parent

    I wonder if they are 50MM now (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:35:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't believe. . . (none / 0) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    they'd let that number sit out there for days and days if they didn't have it.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    I expected them to release some incredible number yesterday to try to change the narrative away from their losses.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#55)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    I misread your point. Still in my coffee sipping phase this AM.

    It would be strange for them not to try to wrangle the number or whatever if what they have is lower.

    I dunno. I can't make sense of it.

    Parent

    No idea (none / 0) (#42)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    It's possible, the way they'd probably been taking in money over the month, but then again I don't think I ever got the sense that they were themselves floating any specific number. Of course, their "substantially more" comment or whatever it was would of course lead people to that sort of conclusion -- people always tend toward multiples of 10 and/or 5 in guesses -- so if they didn't get something near there, that was a dumb move.

    Parent
    I'm even more curious about cash on hand (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    Considering his campaign's spending in February, CoH might be the reason it's being pokey about the numbers.

    If his campaign spent into the red as a Hail-Mary pass to sweep the Feb. states, it would make its argument about Hillary "not being able to run a campaign" ring hollow.

    Parent

    Cash on Hand (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    At the end of Jan:

    Obama   24,940,159
    Clinton   28,186,341

    LINK

    Parent

    Am I misreading this? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    So he had 3 million less than her at the end of January AND he outspent her 2-1 in Texas and Ohio? So how much must he have on hand right now? This sounds like the reason he may not want to talk about numbers at this point...

    And it would then be no wonder he doesn't want to revote Michigan and Florida. He wouldn't have the cash advantage he had in the past where he can continue to outspend her 2-1 or 4-1.

    Parent

    he also spent (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    money on ad buys in those 11 states--fairly aggressively, from what I've heard (anecdotal) from friends who got sick of watching the ads.  Clinton would have spent considerably less because she knew that she needed to hold out for TX and OH, whereas Obama would have to be fairly aggressive to ensure that those states were still covered.

    Parent
    great link (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney each raised more than John McCain.

    Also, Obama has far less debt than Hillary, by millions, that's not good. She needs those contributions.

    Parent

    If I am reading the graph correctly (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    she has 7.5mm in debt.  I don't know if that includes the 5mm loan she made to herself.  Also, it's been my long understanding that a lot of political consultants write off the bulk of their fees, so I wonder how much of that debt is real debt?

    But, am I wrong that considering these numbers, 7.5mm is not a huge amount of debt to be carrying?  

    Parent

    Halperin's The Page (none / 0) (#82)
    by Klio on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    says $55 million.  Jinkies, that's a lot.

    Glad I gave to HRC yesterday and today :-)

    Parent

    Gadzooks! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    That is a staggering amount of money.

    What a fascinating switcheroo here.  McCain was hitchhiking to events while Romney and Rudy were throwing around millions. Obama has raised over 100mm in two months and he still can't close the deal.

    There are no "conventional wisdom" scenarios anymore.

    Parent

    Ah ha (none / 0) (#86)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    well, mystery solved. I wonder why they waited a full day. Who knows.

    Parent
    I am guessing (none / 0) (#103)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    Because if you won Tuesday raising $55 million and spending looks great. If you lost then having raised $55 million, spent a lot and still lost looks bad.

    Parent
    Good number (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    Why the wait?

    Parent
    Debt (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    I imagine.  No mention of how much cash he has on hand as of today.  It'll be interesting to see.

    Parent
    Probably because (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    they wanted to bring that out after a win on Tuesday to put the nail in the coffin.

    FTR, I just received the mass mailer from the campaigning confirming 55 million raised for Feb.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    Made the same point last night. I suspect either they didn't blow her out of the water or a lot of the money is GE money not available to him against Clinton.

    Parent
    This ain't the Jerry Lewis Telethon.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    I didn't know we are in the process of selecting a fundraiser-n-chief...I thought we are selecting the prime defender of the constitution.

    I'm wondering if there has been a more obscene waste of money than the sums being spent on this election to choose between 3 pikers, none of whom willing to address any of our core problems.

    Parent

    Well, I agree (none / 0) (#39)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    but it's the current reality of running campaigns, and the media etc. pay a lot of attention to fundraising numbers to build the narrative. It's dumb, but it's where we're at right now.

    That said, I think the real upshot to both of their numbers is that they have plenty of money with which to beat each other to pulp, and anything beyond that is mostly about the narrative (not really, I think they've mostly been pretty nice to each other, but at some point I think there's a diminishing return to more and more money).

    I long for the day when this all works differently. I won't hold my breath for it, though.

    On the "plus" side, maybe the spending for the election is singlehandedly keeping recession from slamming the advertising industry. ;)

    Parent

    as a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    Let me say that the 50mm number was huge news-unprecedented.  I wasn't happy about it, but I could not honestly argue that it wasn't an important milestone in dem fundraising.  I also think that the Obama strategy of selling signs, buttons, etc, instead of giving them away (as every politician usually does) at his stadium events was genius.  18,000 people come and buy a $5 button.  That's something you can market the heck out of with the media folk-and they did.

    I also think you're right about diminishing return.  Look at how much Obama had to spend to lose TX and OH as compared to what Clinton spent to win both.  Freakanomics has some great practicals on this phenomenon.  

    Parent

    We don't have to wait long my friend... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    all we have to do is vote for anybody, literally any body, except Clinton, Obama, or McCain come November.  Nader, Kubby, a write in campiagn for your Aunt Sally...anybody.  

    The day when a 100k campaign based on ideas beats a 100 million dollar one based on business as usual, is the day this cr*p ends.  It doesn't require a miracle, just votes.

    Have Clinton, Obama, and McCain no shame?  Parting hard-working people from their cash like snake oil salesman...begging for it, in fact. I did it for a half a day as a political fundraiser and had to quit to keep my self respect. How do they look in the mirror every morning? I wonder how much gets funneled into private accounts aka "lost"?

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#76)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    I wish it were so simple. I'm with you in theory. Find me a national 100K candidate that will get more votes than you, me, and a handful of my anarchist friends -- in the environment we have, not the one we wish we had -- and we'll talk.

    Until then, real people suffer more when Republicans win.

    Parent

    I totally see your pragmatic point.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    I've just gotten to the point where slightly less people suffering under Democrats doesn't cut it as a consolation prize anymore.  I'm ready to see fundamental problems get tackled, or at least addressed.

    Like most things in life, it probably has to get a lot worse before it gets better.  

    And thank you for the glimmer hope there is some sanity left here....I can't help but crack up when people hail Hillary or Obama as a savior.  They are business as usual entrenched part member politicians, after all.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#108)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    and yeah, neither of these candidates are going to be a savior. But then again, I don't think a president ever will be a savior, at least not without an actual movement on the ground (not just a cleverly crafted Movement(TM) as we're seeing now IMO).

    Probably our major difference is that I'm not even remotely willing yet to let us hit that level of bad, not without trying like mad to avoid it. It'd be a craps shoot in terms of what came out the other end. I've read a lot of history and find it to give no guarantees of better on the other end of bad.

    My POV. I do understand where you're coming from.

    Parent

    To quote "V for Vendetta" (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    "There is no certainty, only opportunity."

    I'm ready for that opportunity, knowing there is no certainty.  

    Parent

    Yay, Clinton! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    You have to give credit in two places here: first to Obama, for really working the online donation platform that Dean pioneered, and second to Clinton for realizing how valuable it is and doing it on her own.  The fact that she is raising so much from small donors has taken away bragging rights from the Obama camp.

    Will we ever see Obama's financial filings with the FEC for Feb?  I kept being told that post TX/OH he would dominate the news cycle with his numbers as well as new super d's.

    Yay! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    I gave more last night. And I bought a tshirt!

    which one? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    I like this one.

    Parent
    I'm sure McCain likes it too (none / 0) (#11)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    he'll like it even more in hte fall when he points out Hillary's experience is a sham.

    Parent
    My friend... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    then Obama is going to get blown out of the water on it anyway. McCain will have more effect showing Obamas own adviser saying Obama isnt ready for the 3am phone call.

    Parent
    I love the H in an oval (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    I've got a sticker of that on my car.  It gives me a thrill every time I see it-the same way seeing those "W's" made me furious.

    Parent
    Dee Dee Myers said today (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    (paraphrase) if a woman had been in the Senate for 2 years and ran for the presidency, she'd be deemed "inexperienced."

    Parent
    I love my W (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    with a line through it.  I can't tell you how many people asked me what that meant.

    Parent
    I can't get behind the (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    "F the president" ones.  Maybe I've watched too many John Wayne movies, but I think insulting the office is wrong.  Insulting the office-holder, though, is wide open.

    Here is an interesting list of unions and PACs and what they spent in TX and OH

    The Daily Query
    Some notable filings with the FEC and IRS in the last 24 hours:
          Independent Expenditures
    • 1199 Service Employees International Union Federal Political Action Fund | 1199 Service Employees International Union Federal Political Action Fund | DRIVE PAC for International Brotherhood of Teamsters | DRIVE PAC for International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Support Barack Obama)
    • AFSCME | EMILY's List (Support Hillary Rodham Clinton)

    LINK

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    is the one

    I can't wait to wear it!
     

    Parent

    Yeah I like that shirt. nt (none / 0) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Just in case (none / 0) (#23)
    by barryluda on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    I'm not the only Obama supporter on this blog...

    I like this one.


    Parent

    can someone explain (none / 0) (#37)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    the "hope" thing to me again?  I really don't get what hope gets you.  Not trying to start an argument here, but I honestly don't get it.  

    I get policy, and plans, and fighting for what you believe in, even if it's unpopular, but I don't know wtf hope is in terms of POTUS.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    Same with change. What does that mean?  I could see if he said "I'm going to change health care" or "I'm going to change X policy." Instead, it's always "I'm going to change Washington." It's a poor slogan.

    Parent
    Change is a great slogan. (none / 0) (#52)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    The less precise you are, the better it is.  No one is every happy with the status quo (although all for different reasons).  A candidate who is for "change" allows voters to believe he's going to change whatever it is they're not happy with in whichever direction they believe it should be changed.

    Not a particularly meaningful slogan, perhaps, but politically very useful if you can get people to buy it.

    Parent

    Speaking of slogans... (none / 0) (#60)
    by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    I read that McCain's internal slogan 8 years ago, borrowed from the Black Panthers, was "Burn it down".  I won't vote for the guy but that's a cool slogan.

    Parent
    Second that.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    that is a cool slogan.

    I wonder if Mac knows where it came from, his head might explode.

    It's what we need too....burn it down and build it back up.  Too bad there is no D or R willing to do it...to much invested in the current broken system.

    Parent

    I still associate hope with Bill Clinton. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    The man from Hope and all that. Guess few people remember that anymore.

    Parent
    Hope = yes we can (none / 0) (#95)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    Determination = yes we will

    Parent
    Stephen Colbert (none / 0) (#117)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    last night said Obama was so upset over his losses he started speaking gibberish, then cut to Obama saying "si se puede."    Funny dude.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#21)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    bought a bumper sticker and a button. I'm going to buy more of her stuff because someday it will be worth lots, first woman candidate, or, first woman president.

    Parent
    i might just amble over to the web site. (none / 0) (#78)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    i could use a tee shirt.

    Parent
    One more time (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    I guess I'll pop over and make another donation today.

    I already gave and I might again (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST


    I have to hide my contributions from my husband... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    ...he's an Obama supporter and I don't want to get into a pissing competition and end up going hungry next month.

    Parent
    Yay, indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    It's amazing, isn't it, that someone whom so many think is "finished" and "can't win" is managing to raise such impressive amounts of money?

    Nothing says "keep going" like boatloads of cash coming in in small-dollar amounts.

    Am betting she has a $50M month - her $35M month was a short one.

    I'm telling you (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    except for all those voters, Obama would already have the nomination.

    Parent
    I'm proud to say that (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Grandmother on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    I donated $500.00 to her campaign yesterday morning.  I'll give until it hurts.  My reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton is SCHIP.  I have five grandchildren who are covered by this program (hence a $l00.00 for each of them).  Their father works very hard and provides for them; however, they do not have health coverage.  

    My 11 year old grandson has been in the hospital more often than not since the beginning of the year. He developed, most likely through a virus, an illness that while not life threatening per se has meant very highly specialized care and treatment.  We live in St. Louis and are lucky to have two university affiliated children's hospitals.  Nonetheless, it took multiple E.R. visits and the collaboration of several physicians from both hospitals to diagnose his condition.

    Without SCHIP, I am convinced he would not be receiving the care and treatment he needs.  I am an attorney who defends personal injury lawsuits.  I read more medical records and take more doctor depositions than I want and I know how dicey medical treatment can be if you don't have health insurance.  

    It is my issue.  I am acutely aware of the degrading comments and derogatory characterizations  describing Hillary Clinton.  But no one in this country represents universal health care more than she does.  When she helped broker the SCHIP program in 1997 (with all due respect to Ted Kennedy's efforts along with Orin Hatch) Barack Obama was just starting his career as an Illinois state legislator pushing the damn wrong button and voting present.

    So every month I give dollars to Hillary in honor of my kids and will continue to do so until she wins the presidency.

    I (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    wish the best to your grandson and your whole family.  Also in St. Louis and also supporting HIllary.  St. Louis is lucky to have wonderful hospitals.

    Parent
    I hope your grandson gets well soon...... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    but I must say you'd be better off saving all those contributions you've been giving and save it for your grandkids....they're probably gonna need all the help they can get no matter which candidate wins.  Hillary and the rest aren't willing to make the changes necessary to secure your grandkid's prosperous future.  

    Don't believe the hype....Hillary will not close the military bases we cannot afford in 100 odd countries.  She will not advocate for the criminal justice changes necessary to get our prison population explosion under control, which we also cannot afford.  She will not overly anger her contributors in the insurance industry.  She won't, Obama won't, McCain won't.  

    Nader or Kubby might:)

    Parent

    thanks for the personal story! (none / 0) (#79)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST


    Parent
    new tactic from Obamaland (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    New Obama tactic: Neither of us experienced: Developing...

    Hope (none / 0) (#28)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    her campaign is ready for the onslaught.  He came up with the placing racist remarks in the Clintons' mouths after her last wins.  Did great damage.  They can't let that happen again.

    Parent
    I think the racist remarks ploy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    worked well, but it can only work once.  The O campaign will want to be really careful going forward talking about race.  They don't want to be seen as the ones making it an issue, especially after Shuster and the pimped out remark wasn't something they stood up against.

    (and I mean as far as the perceptions of normal people, not freaks like us who analyze every bump in the road)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    They gave Johnny McCain a BIG GIFT with that one.

    Blunder #1:  The really bad showing in the presser

    Blunder #2: Neither of us experienced....

    They're having a great week!

    Parent

    hmm... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    ... so the Obama campaign gives McCain a huge lift when Obama challenges Clinton on experience.

    But when Clinton challenges Obama on experience, and talks positively about how John McCain is more experienced, that is okay?

    Lets be perfectly honest - John McCain will win EVERY experience argument with Clinton or Obama.  It isn't even close.  And it simply is not a direction either democrat candidate can go in the GE.

    That is Obama's point.

    Parent

    experience won't be the issue it is now (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    in a Clinton-McCain race. It's only an issue in Clinton-Obama and McCain-Obama. Clinton-McCain will be on policy and issues.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    Because McCain won't rerun endless clips of Hillary talking about the importance of experience and then ridicule what Hillary claims passes for experience on national security compared to him.  He would never be so mean to her.  If she is the nominee and he does not do a version of her 3am add I'll eat my hat.

    Parent
    Noooo..... (none / 0) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    The OBAMA campaign admitted THEIR OWN INEXPERIENCE!

    And they got it on tape!  That is the gift to McCain for the generals.

    Link

    Parent

    So this is a gift to McCain (none / 0) (#36)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    But Hillary talking up McCain's experience is not?  If experience alone is the test McCain wins.  If it is judgment Obama wins based on her vote for the war.  So how does she win?  

    By calling Obama Ken Star? Is this okay will her supporters here?  And if the response is he will get worse in the general then you are basically saying Hillary should hire Rove (who she thinks is so brilliant).

    What is her argument going to be against his greater experience if she continues this national security be afraid stuff.  She plays right into their hands.  They will ridicule her claim to experience based on visiting lots of countries and getting flowers from lots of kids (If she is the nominee I predict a montage commercial where they show 60 different shots of her getting flowers or doing similarly empty ceremonial stuff around the world).

    I think neither side can afford to attack the other in a way that ultimately helps the Republicans.  Most on this site seem to want that rule only to apply to Obama.  

    Parent

    why do we base (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    Obama's "good judgment" on the speech he made way back when rather than on the land deal he made with Rezko?  One is held up as a shining light of good judgment, the other is an admitted "bone-headed mistake."

    As Perry Mason would say: Were you lying then or are you lying now?


    Parent

    Bonehead and Boneheader. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    When Obama makes an error, he calls himself a "bonehead."

    When Hillary makes an error, he calls himself "president."

    Parent

    Does Clintion really want to make that argument (none / 0) (#51)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    Does she really want to turn the debate too land deals and cattle futures and that kind of thing.  Really?

    The Rezko deal has nothing to do with National Security which is what Hillary focuses on with the experience stuff.  

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    Bring it on.  Clinton has shown again and again that she can take any questions you throw at her.  Even, like, more than eight.

    Parent
    No, Bill has shown that (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    Hillary has shown no such thing.

    Parent
    Clinton's history (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    shows that she can slog through all the slime and muck thrown at her from Republicans and media alike to win a senate seat. Obama hasn't been slimed or mucked yet, and consequently he has much more to lose getting dirty in a muckfest.


    Parent
    You can't be serious (none / 0) (#92)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    She had no serious opposition in either Senate race and Obama has not flung even a drop of mud (unlike her with the Rezko crap).  

    The closest he has come is to ask her to release her tax returns, we she refuses to do for no explicable reason.  Where has Bill been getting all that money (including the 5 mil she lent the campaign).  What eastern European deals don't we know about.  What (and who) had he been doing the last few years.  Obama won't ask I suspect, but the Republican's will.  That is my biggest fear of her in the general.  I just can't believe there is not another Clinton scandal waiting in the wings.  There always has been before.

    The idea that past slime is some how inoculating is absurd.  On the contrary I think at this point people will believe alomst anything about the Clintons that is scandalous.

    I'll not that no Clinton supporter has either condemned or defended Woflson's Ken Starr comment.

    Parent

    oh my god (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    Obama has not flung even a drop of mud

    What world are you living in???

    Parent

    Obamaland (none / 0) (#112)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    Unicorns, rainbows, where the the bluebird sings by the lemonade springs.

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#122)
    by tree on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
     the Unity Pony!

    Parent
    Obama has not flung even a drop of mud (none / 0) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    Attack timeline

    On the contrary I think at this point people will believe alomst anything about the Clintons that is scandalous.

    Only if they're really dumb.

    Oh wait.

    Parent

    you do realize (none / 0) (#118)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is the most popular living ex-POTUS, right?  He reportedly gets $1mil when he collects a fee for speaking.

    Not to mention their books....she is a multi-millionaire in her own right.

    The income sources is a ridiculous argument.

    Parent

    Well at least her bad judgments were.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    ...much longer ago and I don't think she's running on a perfection platform anyway.

    Parent
    I think we just all felt she was flush (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    They kept saying about her massive war chest. So when she said in Jan she needed money, we all started giving. The shirts are great and I am in Penna and should start wearing one.

    Like Craig Crawford said: (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    "Yes We Can" WHAT?

    This numbers thing is suspicious, it would have made sense after the 3/4 losses, now, not so much.

    Once again I'll ask:  what about those 50 S-D's?

    And, don't tell Hillary and her supporters about "hope"--what do they think got her/us through February!  Well, that, and lots of hard work!

    someone (was it you?) (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    said on another thread that Pelosi had told the Super Ds to keep their opinions to themselves.

    Or, maybe the 50 Super Ds was just an internet rumor?

    Parent

    Brian Williams (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    I thought he started that rumor.

    Parent
    It was Brokaw on the night of the primaries. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    Guess he was trying to be relevant.

    Parent
    Maybe they. . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    hoped there would be 50 new supers but the delegates changed their minds?

    Seriously, if they've really been saying they have them, I suspect they do have them.  But I can't figure out where they're keeping them, and why.

    Parent

    My grandkids are well (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Grandmother on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    taken care of now and will be through their trust funds when we die.  My husband and I are supposed to be Obama supporters according to everything that I read - latte liberals I think is a term I see bantered about. Nonetheless, while we are affluent now, that wasn't always the case. Thirty years ago I was raising my daughter as a single mom, working three jobs and going to school.  I raised my daughter during the Carter/early Reagan years by myself.  I remember having my heat turned off because I couldn't afford to pay the bill. My husband worked on his Ph.D while living in the back of a bicycle shop in Bloomington, Indiana which had no central heating system.

    Fast forward and here we are in 2008 and the only presidential candidate speaking to those who do not have a voice is Hillary Clinton. When you are so busy trying to survive and keep a roof over your head, when you have to make choices about the basic necessities of life, when you don't even know there is a presidential campaign going on much less the nuances of a corruption trial in Chicago, you need someone who can look out for you.

    By the way, much of the money that we now have was made during the Clinton years when the economy was so good.  We were lucky to be in jobs that paid well and we made smart investments.  I make no excuses for our good life and good fortune but I also know that there are people, families who, through no fault of their own, are not so lucky.

    I don't have a voice... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:34:05 PM EST
    and Clinton sure as hell ain't speaking to me.  

    My life savings fits in a rubber band under my mattress, the rising cost of living is a worry, but as of now I'm staying fed and warm.  I don't want promises of care from cradle to grave, I'm confident enough in myself to handle the curves life throws, all I want from my country's leader is the preservation of liberty and the promise of peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world by doing all we can within our power to ensure peace.  Now unless Clinton has pledged to end the tyrannical practice of drug prohibition, end the presence of US troops in 100-odd countries, and other infringements on our peace and liberty by our govt., she still ain't speaking to me.  She's part of the machine....isn't it obvious?

    Parent

    Then don't vote for her. Simple. (none / 0) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:30:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course I won't.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:49:15 PM EST
    just trying to open some eyes.

    You don't believe she will lead us out of Iraq/Afhanistan, do you?  Or Germany, Korea, and Japan for that matter.  Or is foreign occupation, and the eventual bankruptcy it will surely cause us, not a big issue for you.  Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

    Parent

    i suppose there are some who think (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    i should be on the obama train. i however come from a union family and know what it like to fear the company where your dad works. at one time i taught school and saw the need for better schools and lower class loads. i know the importance of health care. i have insurance now, but when building my company i didn't. so what do i do but fall on the sidewalk and mangle my wrist to the point of surgery. been there also! i know how fragile and easy it is to break the middle class. i also know we all lose when that happens. that is what i could never understand about republicans. the me, me, me and mine bull! if the ship sinks, we all go down.

    Parent
    Exactly Kathy (none / 0) (#3)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST


    Yay (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    I wish the website would update the donation total more quickly; I like to be able to follow the progress. It's not the most important thing, just fun.

    It would be nice (none / 0) (#5)
    by barryluda on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    if all of the money Clinton and Obama raised could start to be used against McCain rather than against each other.
    Hillary praised McCain over Obama (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    several times.  She'd rather go after Obama than her good friend John.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    thanks for acting like a Republican. She never EVER said that. She said McCain would tout experience. He will. But twist it to suit your attack. Obama's supporters have gotten very good at it.  

    Parent
    Nope, she said he had more experience (none / 0) (#67)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    Not just that he would tout it.  

    Parent
    the point isn't screwing up Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    the point is praising the Republican nominee.  But I guess that's ok under the Clinton Rules.

    Parent
    dang, how about saint ronnie all the (none / 0) (#87)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    while dissing clinton? huh? selective i see!

    Parent
    You need to reread (none / 0) (#90)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    The Clinton Rules

    Parent
    She said (none / 0) (#97)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002

    In the context of her campaign, where experience is the holy grail of being qualified to be president that is clearly praise.

    Parent

    Hold on a second (none / 0) (#107)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    Forgetting the whole spin on this am I missing something? Jon McCain has more experience than Sen Obama. He has been in the senate how many years? How much older is he?

    I am not saying it is GOOD experience, but are we now just rewriting facts as we like them?

    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#119)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    and NO ONE WOULD EVERY KNOW McCain has lots of experience if Hillary never mentioned it!!!  :P

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    all you have to do is talk Obama into dropping out!

    Parent
    It would be nicer.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    if they gave all that cash to soup kitchens and free clinics.

    Ya know...something useful.

    Parent

    rebuild some roads and bridges too! (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:41:53 PM EST
    i go over a bridge right now between beaumont and houston IH 10 and it scares me. yeah, they are building another, but with the good ole boys, it will take forever. i see a number of other bridges that aren't being rebuilt.

    Parent
    Now that would have been.... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    a good economic stimulus package...some rebuilding of our infrastucture.  Sure, the govt. would spend the money poorly and waste half of it, but maybe we'd get a couple safer bridges and roads.

    But instead we will get a 600 dollar check to prop up the Chinese economy and Hillary's buddies at Walmart.  Brought to you by a Dem congress and Repub executive...in cahoots.

    Parent

    wonder if she got any from Rezcko co-defendants: (none / 0) (#41)
    by Miss Devore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    "Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin `Tony' Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago's "Operation Board Games."

    Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama's political opponents. None have donated to Obama."

    Has Hillary been friends (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    with any of those donors? Does she have a more than 10 year personal relationship with them? Didn't think so.

    Parent
    One more question (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    Have the contributions from any of those donors been alleged by the Government to be tainted funds from criminal proceeds?

    Parent
    Ever heard of Marc Rich? (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    Or is that, like NAFTA, just part of Bill's experience?

    Parent
    The reason why (none / 0) (#89)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    no one is trembling in their boots at the name "Marc Rich" is that this has come up umpteen times for her, and she has surmounted the implications up to now.

    If the name March Rich tarnishes her, it's just adding to all the charges thrown at her over the years, charges that haven't stuck.

    Obama hasn't experienced that. He has a long way to fall, and worse yet, his political image is built on being hopeful and above the fray. Her image is built on fighting it out in the trenches, so she can take lots of scurrilous charges before she starts to look bad. He, as we saw in the week before Ohio and Texas, cannot.

    Parent

    I heard (none / 0) (#64)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    Tom Brokaw started the 50 S-D rumor.

    Good point Kathy--I have a theory that he may have raised more money than her, but considering how he's been put-spending her, he may have less in the back now.  

    Obama raised $55M (none / 0) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    Yahoo News Link

    Given that he outspent Hillary 2 or 3 to 1, wonder what his cash on hand looks like...

    I long for the day.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    when we judge a candidate not on the contents of their coffers, but on the contents of their character.

    The coffers are full...the character?  Sorely lacking....

    Hillary Raises $4 Million Online Since Tuesday | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment