REality check -

Eliot Spitzer spent a lot less than HIllary and got more votes on the same ballot.

someone explain how Hillary spent 30 million on her re-election against a candidate no one can name?

Question for NY readers or junkies generally: Is Bill referring to her first Senate campaign when he says her opponents outspent her? If so, can it possibly be true that Lazo, or whoever, outspent her 2 to 1?

It's got to be her first Senate campaign, because in this last campaign, there isn't any way possible for her to have been outspent.

I found this in the July 1, 2000 NY Times:

Representative Rick A. Lazio has collected roughly $4.5 million in donations since entering the New York Senate race six weeks ago, benefiting from the same antipathy toward his opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, that helped propel the fund-raising of Mr. Lazio's predecessor, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Lazio took in almost as much as Mrs. Clinton in the three-month fund-raising period that ended yesterday, even though he began soliciting money only halfway through, according to figures released by the two campaigns. Mrs. Clinton collected $5.1 million.

''We are very encouraged by the outpouring of support for Congressman Lazio and his mainstream message,'' a campaign spokesman, Michael Marr, said yesterday.

In a typical Senate race, Mr. Lazio's total for such a short span would be considering startling. But having entered the race very late -- Mr. Giuliani dropped out on May 19 to focus on his treatment for prostate cancer -- Mr. Lazio remains far behind Mrs. Clinton in financing.

Granted, that's July, but if Bill's claim is true, then Lazio must have been quite the rainmaker by November.

Hillary's been against the war in Iraq and has "had that position for some time".

Artists have license to take liberties with facts.

Why does it seem that Bill is doing the heavy lifting for Hillary? Where would she be without him? This troubles me about her candidacy. We have seen how Cheney runs the Bush Administration. I want the President to be THE President.

From 5/18/2000 NY Times (just before Giuliani dropped out):

Weighing in the balance of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's decision on whether to stay in the Senate race are the millions of dollars he has raised in his effort to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Nearly half of the $19 million has been donated by out-of-state voters, many of whom answered solicitations because they despise his opponent. Yet under federal law, Mr. Giuliani may squirrel away every cent of the more than $9 million he has not spent -- even if he drops out.

I can't name Eliot Spitzer's opponent either but he didn't spend Hillary money on his election

Here is a tip for ya: Stick with what you do know

The "2 to 1" figure probably includes what Guiliani spent before he dropped out, which seems to be about $20 million. So $40 + $20 > 2 x $29

Also worth noting that Bill says "they", not "Lazio".

She is to GOP fund-raising as the war in Iraq is to Al Qieda recruiting.

And sadly, those people, in swing districts, will vote against the freshmen in the House we got in two years ago.

Not only do I not think she is the best against the GOP machine, but I think she's God awful in terms of coatails. We could easily lose the House if she wins the nod.

It is not just that she will bring out the GOP base that hurts in that respect. She will depress democratic turnout. Truely bad news for the party and the nation.

 "The fact is, our opponents may very well outraise us -- and we can't afford to lose momentum now."

Yeah, yeah, Yeah...and what I have to say to this is the age old challlenge. Put your money where you belief/idea/thought is  Cause everyone knows the real test is when people put their money where they mouth is.

I will agree that the anger from the FAR RIGHT stems from Hillary staying married to Bill. I am simply not in the right political spectrum at all.

I am simply not interested in the continuation of the harsh, hate-filled political divide. I want independents, centrists and Republicans who are now leaning Democratic to OVERWHELMINGLY win in the 2008 election. I do not see Hillary being the Democratic candidate who can do that. With the poor selection on the Republican side, I would expect a lot of Republicans to simply skip the 2008 election entirely; that is undercut if Hillary is the candidate since the absolute hatred for her comes from the far right.

On the issues, I simply will not reward anyone who voted for the Iraq War and consistently has supported a super-strong executive. That is the overwhelming issue for me and it eliminates most of the Democrats who are running for the Democratic candidacy from consideration. That damned war mattered--and the Democrats who voted to have Bush make the final decisions were cretins and violators of our constitution. Sure, they can remain Congress folks....but they don't deserve the Presidency. Judgment trumps experience in my book.

We'll see how much traction Hillary is able to maintain as we move closer to the primary dates. Right now, it's name recognition that matters. We'll see what matters to Democratic primary voters this fall.

Then you better read up on the Constitution and decide if you intend to support it. Congressional oversight and how votes are supported matter a great deal. Senator Clinton did not support the constitution and that's the greatest safeguard any of us have against tyranny.

Senator Clinton is only upset because (1) she is asked about her vote to go to war; (2) she supported Bill's ventures into the Balkans which did not go through Congress; and (3) she excuses her vote as "I wouldn't have taken us to war" instead of recognizing the "kick the can to the Prez" as the abrogation of her constitutional responsibilities that it really was.

So death and maiming of Americans and the emptying of our treasury is unimportant? How smug of you. I suspect you don't personally know of anyone connected with the military who are forced to bear the burden. How easy to ignore that destruction that a portion of our population must bear because of this administration and those who supported them.

Her loyalty to Bill has not one thing to do with why I do not want her to be our next president. An apparent lack of conviction, voting with ones finger in the wind is one of my reasons. The other is that she lacks leadership skills. Some people tell us that leadership is about good decision making and being right on the issues. This is not even half of what it takes. Sen. Clinton will like the current president not be able to sell her policies to independents and moderates on the other side of the aisle or to the American people. A leader must have at least the minimum oratory skill to sell their program to the people and use the bully pulpit to good effect. Hillary lacks this ability and her election will lead to four more years of gridlock even with a Democratic majority in congress (which she will not keep for long). If you want to solve the problems this nation faces support anybody but her even if you agree with her on every issue (assuming you know where she stands).