Hillary Brings In $27 Million For Third Quarter
The Hillary Clinton campaign just sent out an e-mail announcing a phenomenal third quarter. They raised $27 million, easily beating Barack Obama's $20 million.
There's no breakdown yet of how much of that figure is in money for the primary and how much can only be spent in the general election, but the number can only reinforce Hillary's image as the frontrunner. And it's almost certain that the primary money totals more than Obama's $19 million, marking the first quarter in which Hillary has beaten Obama's primary fundraising.
Update: The Associated Press reports that Hillary raised $22 million for the primary season, beating Obama.
Late Update: Just to clarify, Obama has still out-raised Hillary for the primary season over the last three quarters in total.
Comments (89)
Daniel wrote on October 2, 2007 9:45 AM:It was just announced that she raised 22million for the primaries.
Whatever else you say about her campaign, Clinton did a phenomenal job with the expectations game this time around... No one expected her to have raised more than 20 million. Add to this her phenomenal lead in all early states and you've got yourself a frontrunner!
Gee wrote on October 2, 2007 9:49 AM:How many new individual contributors? Did she beat Obama's 90K?
I'm betting not. But I'm interested to hear.
IWW wrote on October 2, 2007 9:54 AM:I find it really distubing that a 3 million advantage in one quarter's fundraising leads people to call her the front-runner. Is it one dollar, one vote? Yikes people, where are we going?
modmom wrote on October 2, 2007 9:57 AM:Does this include the $900,000 she received from disgraced supporter Mr Hsu? It would be interesting if a reporter would ask her this question, but it appears the corporate media has already annoited her.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 10:09 AM:I find it really distubing that a 3 million advantage in one quarter's fundraising leads people to call her the front-runner. Is it one dollar, one vote? Yikes people, where are we going?
To put this in perspective for you: $3 million is about half of what Edwards raised in Q3. But her front-runner status is primarily established by her level of support in just about every poll, despite having been outraised up to now by Sen. Obama. Her stronger Q3 fundraising just certifies her as the candidate to beat...a tall order for anyone, I think.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 10:13 AM:How depressing. I don't want anymore clintooons. Do we live in a monarchy? This is ridiculous. How about some real change as opposed to more of the same.
DonnaG wrote on October 2, 2007 10:15 AM:modmom, the Hsu bundle was raised before third quarter, not during the third quarter. Unless there's been some 'creative accounting', this means that she raised enough extra to replace that $900,000 that had to be returned. Plus, perhaps a strong percentage of the returned money was for the general.
So, congratulations to Hillary for coming closer to Obama's continuing lead in primary dollars. From the AP:
"Obama's total included $19 million for the primary, meaning in total this year he's still outraised her in primary dollars _ $74.9 million to $72.6 million."
It could be interesting to see the figures after October 15th, and whether she 'pulled a Romney' by adding to her total with a bit of self-finance from the millions she and Bill cashed out of investments and put into a bank last spring. The October 15th accounting will disclose the actual sources of her 3rd quarter donations, as well as actual numbers of new and repeat donors.
Gee wrote on October 2, 2007 10:16 AM:To put this in perspective for you: $3 million is about half of what Edwards raised in Q3. But her front-runner status is primarily established by her level of support in just about every poll, despite having been outraised up to now by Sen. Obama.
At this point in the 2004 cycle, Joe Lieberman led the Democratic polls nationally, with Howard Dean ascendant.
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated, but no one seems to recognize it -- the national polls are completely meaningless at this stage. Not "of limited significance." Meaningless. Worthless. Indicative of nothing. Among many other reasons because many candidates (Hillary being one of the few exceptions) have name rec well below 100%. And because most voters in most places have given no thought to the election yet, and won't until some time next year.
I am not suggesting that Hillary is anything other than a very formidable candidate. But there is no "frontrunner" right now, except to the idiots who need something to chatter about in op-eds and on cable.
Yeesh.
Jessica wrote on October 2, 2007 10:16 AM:She outraised him by 3 million this quarter but he outraised her the previous two quarters and is still ahead in overall primary money raised.
Keith wrote on October 2, 2007 10:30 AM:Congrats to HRC and her team! This is quickly becoming a two-horse race. Now I wonder which camp starts courting Dodd, Biden and Edwards (too a lesser extent).
fuzz wrote on October 2, 2007 10:36 AM:Gee-
CNN says Hillary had over 100,000 new donors this quarter.
Pete in MN wrote on October 2, 2007 10:49 AM:Funny. Just a couple of days ago she thought she'd only raised $17M. Maybe she needs to hire a better bean counter. Or maybe she just thought she was going to have to give $10M back to her felonious donor base.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 10:50 AM:Does this include the $900,000 she received from disgraced supporter Mr Hsu? It would be interesting if a reporter would ask her this question, but it appears the corporate media has already annoited her.
Before you run away with the Hsu and Clinton non-issue and feel embarrassed for your ignorance, let me direct you do this WaPo piece:
DCS, NYC
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 10:54 AM:Two type of posts that are getting boring to me:
(1) "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!"
If you are going to refuse to vote for a citizen who is running for President based on his or her last name, so be it. To call that a "dynasty" when we live in a DEMOCRACY is completely disingenuous.
Just say you refuse to vote for anyone who has the same last name as anyone who has ever been a previous US President, okay? That's what the Truth is. No one is forcing me to vote for Senator Clinton.
(2) At this point in 2004, Gephardt had Iowa, Lieberman had the entire establishment's support, Dean had the entire anti-establishment's support, and John Kerry had the national campaign structure. The eventual nominee, Kerry, was so low on money, he had to give himself a loan. In addition, there were not any double-digit leads outside the margin of error in any poll.
Clinton currently is competentive in Iowa, has much of the establishment support, enough of the anti-establishment support, and the best national campaign structure I've ever seen. And it looks like she is not going to need to be giving her campaign any loans anytime soon.
I have no idea who will win the primary or the general. But to refuse to admit that she's holding her own in every single measurable category is just getting ridiculous.
I'm a proud Clinton supporter. It matters to me NOT if she outraises Obama -- I love Obama.
I want to see RUDY'S fundraising.
Rudy opened his big fat mouth and promised the world that he is the only one who can take Clinton on.
Hey, Rudy... Bring it on!
How much did YOU raise this quarter???
dcshungu:
your candidate carried the day on fundraising, what's the point of posting a month old story linking Hsu to Obama? Everyone knows that he gave money to Obama's senatorial campaign/PAC,which was returned. His (Obama's) exposure is exponentially less than HRC. Let's just move on to the politic issues, cause this a no-win argument for HRC.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 11:08 AM:Jan, what exactly has she done to warrant being president. Zippo. She is running on Billy-boys record, period. She is just as bad as Mr. 9/11, as opposed to repeating 9/11, she merely, and more subtley, emphasizes the "rosy" clintooon years, which look rosy because of the horrible last six years. How on earth is she "more experienced" than Obama? Four more years in the Senate? This is pathetic.
She is running on her name alone, and that's it. We elect presidents for their name???? We did that with the king and look where that's got us. Electing presidents on their name sounds like a dynasty to me.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 11:08 AM:Late Update: Just to clarify, Obama has still out-raised Hillary for the primary season over the last three quarters in total.
This is definitely true, but the trend is evident... HRC is getting stronger, just like she went from trailing all the top-tier Repub candidates in head-to-head match ups (prompting quite a bit of brouhaha about her "inelectability"), to besting them all in every recent poll. The trend is key, and in HRC's case, the trend makes her look stronger and stronger the closer we get to the early primary dates.
Michael Caine wrote on October 2, 2007 11:17 AM:Daniel, you are so full of it. Hillary was expected to have fund raised more than anyone in Q3. After all the high ticket priced fund raisers connecting corporate lobbies with Democratic Committee chairs it would have been a major upset if she hadn't.
The margin is not that much higher than Obama's. In fact it was so negligible that Obama is still, by far and away, ahead of Clinton in the year to date totals. When you include the fact that the number of Obama's new donors for Q3 nearly outstrip Hillary's total number of donors it still is a better quarter for him since he can tap nearly all of them again, whereas somewhere in the realm of 70% of the money she raised came from tapped out donors.
That being said, congrats to Hillary Clinton and her campaign. They finally managed to meet expectations for her campaign.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 11:17 AM:At this point in the 2004 cycle, Joe Lieberman led the Democratic polls nationally, with Howard Dean ascendant.
HRC is NOT, I repeat: NOT, Lieberman or Dean or Kerry or Gore. She won't make the stupid mistakes that those folks made. And I have news for you: Those state and national polls do have a great deal of meaning this time around because, unless the other candidates can do something to shake up the race, this is going to be over before you know it. HRC is NOT going to do anything to change the status quo, which is in her favor. Obama had better start spending his gigantic look before the current opinions solidify, locking HRC into a position where it would impossible to dislodge her. And unless he gets the nomination, Obama would have to return all that money...
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 11:18 AM:Why, I can't tell you all how pleased I am to see a respectful tone surfacing around supporting the frontrunning candidate in the Democratic primary.
Like Jan said, I support Hillary and I also really like Obama a lot. I'm pleased it's apparently coming down to a race between two of the best in an excellent field, best I've seen since I started voting in 1968. I used to be an Edwards supporter (back when he first got in the ticket in 2004 through the election), but he's lost me since then. I still would vote and work for him gladly if he rallies and wins the nomination.
You go on, girl! Bring on the Republican meat! I think Hillary's an outstanding candidate and strong and right on most issues I find important (not all, please spare me!). But I've liked her since the early 90s (considerably more than Bill). Mostly, I can barely contain the glee I will feel sticking another Clinton (with Bill attached) in the eye of our 16-year tormentors on the right!
Call me irresponsible!
your candidate carried the day on fundraising, what's the point of posting a month old story linking Hsu to Obama?
Keith
The point is in what was in the blockquote that preceded my link to the Wapo piece. I did not bring up Hsu; some other ignorant person did it to try to taint HRC's Q3 fundraising prowess, not realizing that Obama had also been in bed with Hsu. They all returned Hsu's money once they found out that it was tainted. End of story. Why bring it up again? You're asking the wrong guy, but I will do "tit for tat" whenever ignorance is so blatant that it is irritating...
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 11:33 AM:Michael Caine wrote on October 2, 2007 11:17 AM:Daniel, you are so full of it. Hillary was expected to have fund raised more than anyone in Q3.
Well, she did, didn't she. So why is Daniel full of it? Inquiring minds wanna know...
Larry Geater wrote on October 2, 2007 11:34 AM:Time to donate to Obama again!
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 11:43 AM:With all this cheerleading for clintooon, how about somebody list just 2 or 3 things that she has done as a Senator that would warrant her "experience" to be president? How about 2 or 3, just maybe?
About the only "presidential" thing she did, she screwed-up, the war. She blew that one and didn't even read the intelligence. I would say that that is a huge negative to start. So, anybody, what exactly positively has she done?????
stlounick wrote on October 2, 2007 11:45 AM:Good for Hillary. I await the details.
IWW wrote on October 2, 2007 11:50 AM:A respectful tone? What, should we be crossing ourselves and saying rosaries in HER presence?
Respect, imho, is earned, not purchased.
But try telling that to a Clinton-ista.
Also, find it rich that one of the posters who does most to bring down the tone of the debate at TPM-EC with a barrage of condescending, insulting and dismissive posts has the guts to praise others for a "respectful" tone.
Where is that airline barf bag when you need it?
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 12:15 PM:Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 11:08 AM:
"Jan, what exactly has she done to warrant being president. Zippo. She is running on Billy-boys record, period. She is just as bad as Mr. 9/11,"
Michael, you have a right to your own opinion and you are free to vote for whomever suits you.
However, people like you just sort of gag me.
If I thought you were actually listening, I would be happy to advocate what, in MY opinion, Senator Clinton has done to earn my support.
And, personally, I think every Democratic candidate should be running on "Billy-boy's" record. He's the best President America has had since FDR.
However, since you are obviously a dolt whom I really just don't care to engage in debate...
If you want to know more about Hillary Clinton, please visit her website:
www.hillaryclinton.com
I am with you IWW..that poster is exceptionally annoying with the daily harangues...he/she certainly has to be paid by the HRC campaign...
I think it is time to donate to BHO again. His fundraising numbers can triple for the last Q based simply on HRC's 3rdQ numbers.
I will be sending a e mailout to all my friends and family to encourage them to donate again to Obama.
America needs new leadership, The Clintons, need to go home to Chippaequ, NY.
The baggage from the Clinton years, independent of how much I liked Bill as a president, will do nothing but continue the divisiveness in Washington. Hillary will start from a defensive position and never be able to gain control or pass a single thing, as the GOP will win in a landslide in 2010 to change Congress. Just as Gingrich rose to power and brought the GOP to power following Clintons election.
America needs to move ahead and we will not be able to do so with Hillary in the WH...we will wind up fighting the 90s political battles all over again and nothing will get done.
Obama is a fresh face, with outstanding leadership and ability to create consensus, he is committed to listen across party lines and he will work to restore America's moral authority globally.
Hillary is a bridge to the past with all that baggage and divisieness rearing it's ugly head again as she attempts to exact revenge on the right wing conspiracy.
America does not need this. Go home Hillary and take Bill with you.
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 12:21 PM:Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 11:08 AM:
"Jan, what exactly has she done to warrant being president. Zippo. She is running on Billy-boys record, period. She is just as bad as Mr. 9/11,"
Michael, you have a right to your own opinion and you are free to vote for whomever suits you.
However, people like you just sort of gag me.
If I thought you were actually listening, I would be happy to advocate what, in MY opinion, Senator Clinton has done to earn my support.
And, personally, I think every Democratic candidate should be running on "Billy-boy's" record. He's the best President America has had since FDR.
However, since you are obviously a dolt whom I really just don't care to engage in debate...
If you want to know more about Hillary Clinton, please visit her website:
www.hillaryclinton.com
Just what I thought Jan, Zippo. I really like the insults though. Are you paid by the RNC to get clintooon nominated to energize the repuke base? The only way the dems can lose is if she is the nominee. Any other dem breathing would win hands down.
Can't even name 2 or 3 things can you Jan. How about that wonderful Clintoooon bill that she promoted and that was passed in the Senate that did, uh, what? I don't remember. Why don't you help me out? Change my opinion.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 12:36 PM:It is a game of expectations and perceptions, and it is being won by...
A fundraising analyst, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, said this morning that the Clinton fund-raising total is likely to convey an impression of superiority to voters than Mr. Obama will have to battle against.Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 12:43 PM:
“Clinton’s blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters,” Mr. Panagopoulos said. “It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength — both in terms of dollars and number of donors.”
“Obama also raised impressive sums,” he added, “but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama’s lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory.”
re: "The baggage from the Clinton years [...] will do nothing but continue the divisiveness in Washington."
--> I seriously don't care about the divisiveness in Washington. I can't stand today's Republicans. Divide me from them as much as possible. Please.
re: "Hillary will start from a defensive position..."
--> Excuse me?
Clinton doesn't do defensive positions, any more than her supporters do.
Maybe ALL Democrats should stop playing defense against the GOP, before the rest of the world decides once and for all that Democrats are just a bunch of spineless twits compared to the GOP.
re: "...as the GOP will win in a landslide in 2010 to change Congress.
--> Excuse me?
L.M.F.A.O!
That's exactly what the GOP thought in 1996, remember? And in 2000 in NY, remember? And in 2006 in NY, remember? The Republicans are not capable of winning an election in a landslide. They are VERY good at stealing elections.
re: "...just as Gingrich rose to power and brought the GOP to power following Clintons election."
FACT: In 1994, the Democrats were caught in a CHECK-KITING SCHEME. They were a bunch of corrupt jerks. Check it out if you don't trust me.
Clinton's 1992 election had NOTHING to do with 1994.
Nor did "Hillarycare."
Nor did the Contract with America.
1994 Democratic Congress = Corruption = Huge Congressional Losses in 1994
re: "...we will wind up fighting the 90s political battles all over again and nothing will get done."
--> When Bill Clinton left office, 70% of America thought the country was going in the right direction. His approval rating was over 60%.
I guess President Clinton know how to win political battles AND get stuff done.
Imagine that!
elrapierwit, vote for whomever you want.
But your arguments about why *I* shouldn't support the person whom I think would make the best President are... well, ridiculous imo, to be honest.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 12:30 PM:
"Just what I thought Jan, Zippo... Why don't you help me out? Change my opinion."
Because SERIOUSLY, Michael, I don't WANT you on the team I'm on. I don't like people like you. You don't think.
Hillary Clinton is doing well. She doesn't need your support.
Again, if I thought you were open-minded, I would happily take some time with you. But you are unable to come up with even a couple of things that Senator Hillary Clinton has ever done that are admirable.
In my world, that's a dolt.
I'm just fine keeping our worlds many, many worlds apart. I'm sure you are too.
Peace.
Yep, ZIPPO! It really is comical. You would think that you could rattle off 2 or 3 things, but you can't because she hasn't done squat. What a joke.
By the way, I don't want to be on your team either. I don't want to keep running the country into the ground. I don't want to keep the tax dollars flowing to special interests and screwing poor people. I don't want more lies and deceit coming from the government. I want change, not more of the same. I don't want the king light. I want a new direction. I want someone to clean house and put the travesties over the last six years into the dustbin of history, not merely change the name plate on the door to the oval office.
DonnaG wrote on October 2, 2007 1:17 PM:Ok, Jan, I'll get into this thread. I notice you have had multiple chances to list Hillary's senate accomplishments, but, of course, you cannot do so. Instead you weakly refer folks to a nice sounding commercial about her [her web site full of generalities], or you duck and cover by pretending to no longer want to engage.
The reason I interject myself here is that I am very disgusted with nice-sounding but essentially spun generalities. Some months ago, I took every claim made on Hillary's web site and then devoted hours trying to match those generalities with facts from her actual senate record. Result: not only did her record not support those 'glowing' generalities, but in some instances, she was deceptive in claiming credit for the work of others.
Before this primary season, I was neutral about Hillary Clinton, except that I found myself cringing at the tonality of her speeches about as much as I cringe at the tonality of Bush speeches. But, I then went to work to study the facts or lack of facts. That study is why I cannot trust Hillary Clinton to be honest as a primary candidate, nor a president.
And that is why I certainly refuse to abide your fact-less generalities about her either. It is obvious that when you decline to list her senate achievements that you find some need to hide from facts yourself. Enjoy your blinders, but don't expect others to be so lazy.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 1:18 PM:IWW and elrapierwit
Good for Hillary. Another good day for her as your kneejerk Hillogyny grows more laughable by the minute. See you (not) at her inauguration (oh, I'm sorry you two, I meant her "coronation.")
If I can irritate the progressively-pure like the two of you on a daily basis this easily, all I can say is thank Jah for the weapon of mass condescension.
I especially like it when you lecture me on my condescension. "Oh, the ironing!" - H. Simpson, 1997
Oh, well, gotta get back to my job shilling for Hillary now. You're so insightful. Don't worry, there's always Redstate after you wear out your frothing here.
LOL
IWW wrote on October 2, 2007 1:18 PM:
With supporters like these...
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 12:56 PM:
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 12:30 PM:
"Just what I thought Jan, Zippo... Why don't you help me out? Change my opinion."
Because SERIOUSLY, Michael, I don't WANT you on the team I'm on. I don't like people like you. You don't think.
Hillary Clinton is doing well. She doesn't need your support.
Again, if I thought you were open-minded, I would happily take some time with you. But you are unable to come up with even a couple of things that Senator Hillary Clinton has ever done that are admirable.
In my world, that's a dolt.
I'm just fine keeping our worlds many, many worlds apart. I'm sure you are too.
Peace
Because SERIOUSLY, Michael, I don't WANT you on the team I'm on. I don't like people like you. You don't think.
You never gave him the oportunity to think. If you want people to consider your opinion you must offer evidence when it is requested. He asked for 2 or 3 things Sen Clinton had done durring her tenure in the senate to show the kind of leadership we should look for in a president. You refusal to offer any indicates to the casual observer that you are not aware of any.
IWW wrote on October 2, 2007 1:26 PM:BTW, Jan & colon, keep alienating Iowans one at a time and you may find yourself eating your brash words about how dispensable we are to your "team." You both have certainly changed my mind about any inclination I might have had to support HRC in the general and/or work for her campaign. But, that shouldn't matter to you, because it's all inevitable at this point...
IWW
Oh, ouch! Gosh, so you were ready to consider voting for Hillary and Jan and I talked you out of it?
HaHaHaHaHa
You so funny.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 2:03 PM:And that is why I certainly refuse to abide your fact-less generalities about her either. It is obvious that when you decline to list her senate achievements that you find some need to hide from facts yourself. DonnaG:daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 2:05 PM:I have listed, not just her Senate achievements, but also her life-long achievements, which, in IMHO, would define HRC and her record. However, each time I did it, it was like giving a sermon to date trees in the Sahara desert: the same people came back and asked me to list her achievements! It is pointless. You can speak with any Senator (your Senator), Repub and Dem, and they'll tell you that HRC is among the most hard-working, the most imaginative, the smartest, and the most conciliatory senators they've ever worked with. Heck, she has even co-sponsored legislations with the likes of Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham, the Impeachers, who gushed about her ability to compromise. Imagine that! Despise Clinton since you must, but to deny her incredible gift as a politician and leader is just ludicrous...a state of denial just like the inability to recognize that she is running away with this thing unless someone can do something that would shake up the race...
Someone tell the RNC trolls to go home and take their pro-Hillary parody with them.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 2:28 PM:Talk about fluff on the RNC pro-clintooon postings. Still waiting on something, anything she did warranting this claim of experience to be president. I'll be quite honest, when the repukes are singing her praises, it makes you wonder. I'd rather be safe than sorry, no clintooon voting for me. I'd vote for any other democrat, but her. I am still hoping Gore jumps in after he gets the Nobel Prize to knock her out. Gore/Obama 08. I know its a dream, but one can always hope.
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 2:35 PM:Anyone who actually needs to look up what Senator Clinton has accomplished in her public life can check out the facts on her website. If you can't take the time to do that, vote for someone who you DO have the time for.
Since when do I have to jump at some fool's command for easily acquirable information about a Presidential candidate???
And, Iowa, I'm from New Hampshire.
I don't really care to be out in February or October holding signs with any Democrats who are in the habit of parroting GOP talking points.
You caucus for whomever you want, and I will vote for whomever I want. Deal?
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 2:35 PM:The world of TPM according to daylily:
If you favor some excellent Democratic candidate (anybody but Hillary), and you relentlessly and reflexively toss nasty insults at the motivations and intelligence of Hillary and her supporters for nigh on a year now = congratulations, you're a SUPPORTIVE PROGRESSIVE!
If you favor Hillary and toss the insults right back at them out of a year's worth of frustration over the lack of support and understanding exhibited by kneejerk Hillary-haters on a so-called Democratic site = congratulations, you're a PRO-HILLARY PARODYING TROLL
Do I have that right?
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 2:45 PM:From her website, for anyone too lazy to look:
In 2000, Hillary was elected to the United States Senate from New York. As Senator, Hillary has continued her advocacy for children and families and has been a national leader on homeland security and national security issues.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero. And she continues to work for resources that enable New York to grow, to improve homeland security for New York and other communities, and to protect all Americans from future attacks.
She is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, working to see that America's military has the necessary resources to protect our national security. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Fort Drum in New York, home of the 10th Mountain Division and other New York bases, as well as at Walter Reed Military Hospital. She has learned first-hand the challenges facing American combat forces. Hillary passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed. She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves and has been a strong critic of the Administration's handling of Iraq.
But Hillary has recognized that we can't ignore our problems at home while we face challenges overseas. She has introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage, because she believes if America's working people don't deserve a raise, neither does Congress. She has supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including marriage penalty relief, property tax relief, and reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax, and supports fiscally responsible pay-as-you-go budget rules. She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program. She has championed legislation to bring broadband Internet access, which is so important in today's information economy, to rural America.
In the Senate, Hillary has not wavered in her work to expand quality affordable health care to more Americans. She worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families. She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism. She sponsored legislation to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis, and is now leading the fight for expanded use of information technology in the health care system to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors.
Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate. Some of Hillary's proudest achievements have been her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and her legislation to help schools address environmental hazards. She has also proposed expanding access to child care. She has passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.
Hillary has been a powerful advocate for women in the Senate. Her commitment to supporting the rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade and to reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies was hailed by the New York Times as "frank talk...(and) a promising path." Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.
Hillary is strongly committed to making sure that every American has the right to vote in fair, accessible, and credible elections. She introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to ensure better protection of votes and to ensure that every vote is counted.
In 2006, New Yorkers re-elected Hillary to the Senate with 67 percent of the vote.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 2:51 PM:Jan you truly are bizzare. What GOP talking points??? All the GOP and Fox Entertainment do is praise her because they want her to be the nominee. At the same time, they trash Obama. Seems to me they want clintooon and don't want to face Obama. That's called thinking.
If you aren't an RNC troll, why don't you think??? Stop buying the fluff and get some substance for your "arguments." Also, I really don't care what her website says, why do you keep referring me to it??? You're the supporter, support her and give me facts, not insults and generalities. What a joke.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 3:01 PM:Ok Jan, I will go through it when I get time. Another poster said he went through the fluff and there was no substance. Looks like fluff to me, but I will actually take some time to go through it. I just don't recall her taking the lead on anything in the senate in the last six years reported, concededly, in the right-wing biased media, so I don't stand solely on the lack of reporting. The only thing I do remember is her vote for the war, which obviously isn't a good thing. Don't see any explaination in her bio on that vote, probably her most important.
daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 3:16 PM:So, either you're Republican trolls or you're Democrats who are so embittered by the callous way their candidate has been treated that they must come here and spew bile because (unforgivable sin!) someone dared ask for perspective beyond what's available on the campaign website (the horror!).
I'm assuming you must be trolls because I can't imagine any genuine supporter would think that this sort of public display of harpiness would reflect well on their candidate.
If you're not trolls, I really have no idea what you think you're accomplishing here.
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 3:39 PM:Michael, if it looks like fluff to you, so be it. Best to compare it with your candidate's accomplishments while in the Senate, or elsewhere, these last few years.
just fyi, Michael, my first candidate in 2004 was Senator Bob Graham, one of the FEW Senators (including not just Clinton but also McCain and a few others) who DID actually read every single page of the intel.
Were you so upset about the Senators not reading the intel that you too backed Bob Graham in 2004 until he dropped out of the race, as I did?
Otherwise, no candidate's position or vote is a disqualifyer for me. I appreciate that Obama spoke out. He's to be commended, loudly.
But Bob Graham, who knew the intel was fixed and said so, couldn't even make it TO Iowa in 2004, nevermind past Iowa.
So much for knowing the intel was fixed and it giving a candidate any standing with Democrats in 2004.
My family had a shipmate killed aboard the USS Cole. There is no one in America who was more against the invasion of Iraq than we were.
However, that was 18% of the nation way back then. It's about 70% of the nation now. I don't hold anyone's Iraq vote against them. Too many good people were wrong.
If you do, Senator Clinton has already told you that she's not your candidate.
I agree. Her position is that a Senator should be able to trust the POTUS when he's speaking to the Congress about taking the nation to war.
She believes, as do I, that if the POTUS lies our nation into war, the POTUS should be held accountable.
You don't have to agree with that.
But it cracks me up when people accuse Clinton of "pandering."
Clinton: "If you don't think GWB and his adminstration should be held accountable for invading Iraq, I'm probably not your candidate."
Eh, that's NOT pandering, imo.
Enjoy the information.
Glad I could be of service.
Insofar as all the O-Bomb-A cheerleaders (and the O-Bomb-A campaign itself) have always touted BO's fund raising and donor totals as indicative of their candidate's superior position in the race, Clinton's besting them in both categories in this third quarter is BIG NEWS, indeed.
The unending excuses throughout the year as to why O-Bomb-A's poll numbers have never lived up to expectations continue to be proven just that: excuses. And what the polls have ALWAYS registered is now beginning to reflect in fund raising, as well.
The BO campaign is s stinker and the American public is telling us so!
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 3:44 PM:daylily
Let's see, according to you (in two short comments, the first time you've ever addressed any comment to me), you state that we're "trolls" "Republican trolls" "embittered" "spewing bile" "trolls" (again) "harpies" and "trolls" once again.
You said, "I really have no idea what you think you're accomplishing here."
On the other hand, I think I have a good idea of what you're trying to accomplish here. You are trying to expand your name-calling ability! Here's my advice. Use the word "troll" less often.
Peace
Jan, Huh? You are bizzare. I hate the straw-person arguments as well. This all started with just a simple request for just 2 or 3 things of note she did in the senante warranting her consideration as a presidential nominee or that she was so "experienced." All I got in response were personal attacks, attacks on others, attacks on Obama and a cut and paste job from her website. You are such a phenominal supporter that you merely alienate people and can't even give a good one - two punch why she is so wonderful. Very bizzare. I still think you might be a fox or rnc operative. Maybe you're billo playing on the internet again.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 3:56 PM:colonpowwow and jan are one in the same person. Check out the posts. Very bizzare. I think its an rnc or fox operative. They are the only ones that pay for morons to do these stupid postings.
daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 4:19 PM:Michael -- agreed, something is definitely suspicious ... do you think they hire operatives to smear front-runners in general (in other words, should we expect Obama-trons too), or is it just Hillary?
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 4:25 PM:No, they want clintooon. Have you ever heard a repuke or fox say anything negative about clintoooon. Nope. They have so much ammunition, but silence, nothing. Now, Obama and edwards they are blasting. Even Gore, they are blasting. But silence, other than praise, lots of praise, which is sickening, for clintoooon. It really is frightening. The repukes desperately want clintooon to win the nomination, because she is the only dem that they can beat. If she gets the nomination, she will then be smeared and vilified. Just wait and see.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 4:39 PM:Michael and daylily
Oh yes, you got me. And Jan. We're really the same person and since we are a split personality, colonpowwow works for the RNC and Jan works for Fox. Gosh, you're ass-toot!
Seriously, the problem, as Jan mentioned (I think it was her - or maybe it was me), we have answered your questions seriously for months now, and the next day you (or is it another you?) pops up and asks the same question.
Okay, yesterday I posted seriously (but in a humorous way, we can't stop ourself) in answer to questions of Hillary's experience. I pointed out that Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Worked as an activist in Illinois and Arkansas
Worked on Bill's campaigns for governor
Was First Lady of Arkansas
Worked on Bill's presidential campaigns
As First Lady, she headed the ill-fated (but right-hearted) healthcare initiative and continued advocating for the successful S-CHIP program.
Won election to the Senate twice. In her first Senate speech she outlined 5 healthcare proposals that she would support
Heads a disciplined campaign that will likely carry her to be the first woman President in our glorious history.
No experience to see here, move along. (That was my - our? little joke from yesterday's post).
Okay, you can start dumping on us moronic Hillary supporters and our dumb candidate and her mean machine now. Sorry for the factual interlude.
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 4:58 PM: I am still hoping Gore jumps in after he gets the Nobel Prize to knock her out. Gore/Obama 08. I know its a dream, but one can always hope.ROTFLMAO! There is a great organ music program on Sunday mornings that I seldom miss. It is called "Pipe Dreams"...
daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 5:00 PM:Michael --
Hmmmm ... I think we've got the same culprits but different conspiracies. You think Fox/RNC unleashes these people to bolster Hillary (for the time being). I think that they do it to ultimately undermine her -- that they know their "advocacy" is so ham-handed and offensive that it will discourage actual Democrats from supporting her as the nominee. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit...
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 5:07 PM:I am still hoping Gore jumps in after he gets the Nobel Prize to knock her out. Gore/Obama 08. I know its a dream, but one can always hope.
ROTFLMAO! There is a great organ music program on Sunday mornings that I seldom miss. It is called "Pipe Dreams"...
dcshungu wrote on October 2, 2007 5:12 PM:I usually come to this forum to gauge how well HRC is doing before I even check the headlines or the polls. The shriller the tone, the better HRC is doing. Check it out yourselves...It is like clockwork.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 5:16 PM:and
daylily comes through to prove my point that it's useless to attempt to penetrate nonsensical, kneejerk Hillary-hate with facts anymore.
Don't you get it? We basically are just laughing at you haters anymore because we're tired, and our work on behalf of her candidacy (or on behalf of Fox News or whatever) has her rolling quite well on her way to the nomination, thank you.
See you (not) at the inauguration party.
Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 5:18 PM:daylily, maybe, but I think that they think they are playing her up as the only "real" candidate the dems have that can win. Even kristol plays her up. They aren't trying to undermine her. They have way to much ammunition to undermine her and all we have heard is silence. No attack ads or attacks on the stupid talk shows? They could easily undermine her, but they don't want to.
There are many facts cutting against your theory. She has incredibly high negatives and she will energize the repuke party base, which is demoralized right now. Just imagine the incredible jump in fundraising that the repukes will get if she is the nominee. Also, she will hurt dems down the line in the senate and congressional races by boosting repuke turn-out. She is the repukes dream candidate.
dchsungu - I'm glad you got a laugh. I know its a pipe dream, I said it in my post.
I'll get back to you when I have time colonpowwow. From a skim, I'm not impressed so she was a campaign operative and first lady. I hope Laura doesn't run in 2012 or how about barbara. Basically, she is running on Billy's coattails and nothing more. Anyway, what's with the immediate attacks? No facts, so just attack, that's a repuke tactic.
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 5:23 PM:Michael wrote on October 2, 2007 4:25 PM:
"No, they want clintooon. Have you ever heard a repuke or fox say anything negative about clintoooon. Nope."
Have we ever heard a Republican or Fox say anything negative about Hillary Clinton???!!!???
Are you friggin' serious?
That's the kind of shit I called you a dolt over, Michael.
This is your Truth...?? ...that you have NEVER heard the GOP and Fox never say anything negative about Hillary Rodham Clinton???!!!???
Jeesh!
And, btw, what's with the "clintooon" crap, big boy?
You want me to have a serious debate with someone who calls a US Senator and Presidential candidate "clintooon"?
Also, I don't recall ever saying I hate clintooon. I don't like her, but I don't hate her. What's with that tag?
daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 5:26 PM:And then there's all the forced Hillar-ity. All the "HaHaHa"s and "we're laughing at you." What's up with that? Are they not-so-subtle references to The Cackle?
Definitely Fox/RNC caricatures.
Jan wrote on October 2, 2007 5:30 PM:MICHAEL, THESE ARE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS VERBATIM:
"She has incredibly high negatives and she will energize the repuke party base, which is demoralized right now. Just imagine the incredible jump in fundraising that the repukes will get if she is the nominee. Also, she will hurt dems down the line in the senate and congressional races by boosting repuke turn-out. She is the repukes dream candidate."
Are you scare of "repukes"?
If so, all I can say in response is...
Typical Democrat. Scared shitless of the "power" of Republicans to dictate the lives of poor little Democrats against their will.
Pathetic.
daylily
(sigh)
I trust that you're much smarter than your comments and that you realize exactly who is getting "exposed" for what they are here.
Oh, well. Very tiresome. Uh, sorry Jan they aren't repuke talking points they are concerns of the dem establishment all the way down to the congress people that have to run with her at the top of the ticket. There is a major concern that she will be a drag down the ticket by energizing the repukes to come out and vote.
Also, if you are who you say you are watch fox news for a while and see what they are saying. It will give you some insight on the enemy. Very interesting. No, they don't bash clintooon. Watch fox entertainment on sunday and listen to the wacko opinion guys like kristol and the luddite hume. All they do is praise her.
Jan/colonpowwow, lighten up already. Maybe you need some prozac or something.
daylily wrote on October 2, 2007 5:49 PM:
:
Oh yes, I've enjoyed the exchange a great deal. Quite revelatory. A veritable political Heart of Darkness (but with laffs, so even better). What can I say but that I look forward to the next installment (or should I say episode)?
Myr wrote on October 2, 2007 6:00 PM:So, this past quarter, Clinton raised $22m for the primary versus Obama's $20m. My question is: how much of Clinton's $22m was transfered from her Senate coffers?
DonnaG wrote on October 2, 2007 6:21 PM:Meanwhile, lost in all the back and forth childish verbiage is NO answer to the original request for an accounting of '2-3 things Senator Clinton has done in her tenure in the Senate to show the hand of leadership' we would be able to expect from Clinton. Jan just simply copies and pastes from the generalities and fluff on a website, and colon lists every fluff thing he can except something pertinent to the specific request.
So, Michael, I think you can safely assume that Jan is a sheep sort of follower, not one able to follow specific requests, and I am concluding that colon....well s/he is a spoiler of discussion who seems most interested in this some negative pleasure blame-attack game instead of a serious look at comparing facts.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 6:42 PM:DonnaG
And just when I thought you were on the verge of becoming reasonable.
In response to Michael's question, I listed seven factual bullet points of Hillary's political experience (I missed number 8 I listed yesterday which was "Hillary has endured and responded strongly to 16 years of Clinton-sliming from the right wing attack machine."
I gave a clear factual answer to a question and the response was that Jan and I are the same person and we work for Fox News.
Go ahead and reread the thread. Both Jan and I gave serious answers to the questions raised by these people. She and I both listed a number of pieces of legislation that Hillary authored as Senator or led on as First Lady and later as Senator.
Which bullet point re Hillary's experience that I listed would you point to as not being political experience? If Hillary was applying for a job as President, which of these points would you deem irrelevant on her resume?
I expect an apology for the slam, but I won't hold my breath.
Ok, I'll play some more. Colonpowwow, your argument that clintooon is qualified is based on your 7 claims. Well let's see, the queen (Mrs. King) fulfills the following 5 out of 7:
Worked as an activist in [Texas]
Worked on [the king's] campaigns for governor, a lot bigger state than Arkansas
Was First Lady of [Texas], a lot bigger state than Arkansas
Worked on [the king's] presidential campaigns
As First Lady, she headed [many children initiatives]
Sooo, do these facts make the queen qualified to be president?
Of course not, then we have come full circle to my original inquiry. What has clintooon done in the senate to qualify her to be president? She won election to the senate based on being Mrs. Bill, big deal. The queen could accomplish the same thing in Texas.
What has she done? NOTHING. Let's stop playing games and admit the only reason she is the front runner is her name is clintooon. If her name was smith and she wasn't married to billy, she wouldn't even be in the race. It really is pathetic.
Aileen Laing wrote on October 2, 2007 7:32 PM:I liked Obama from the moment I heard him speak at the convention in 2004. I predicted right then that we were looking at a future President right there.
A lot has been said about HRC, about how divisive she would be because the right hate her so much. A lot has been said about how Obama would unite people and be a breath of fresh air.
Give me a break. Yes the right hate Hillary and I've asked several why and they can't give me an answer. I watch their brains go into overdrive as if it was the first time they had to consider the why.
Anyone who thinks it will be different under Obama is fooling themselves. The right will never allow ANY democratic President a moments piece no matter who it is.
They base their opinions from listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, Ann Coulter.
Not for one minute would they calm down with Barack as our leader, and you know what? He couldn't fight them back without losing his clean image.
Say what you like about Hillary, she knows who and what she is dealing with, she knows what it is like to be personally attacked and she also knows how the White House operates.
I hope Obama will be President one day. But right now the country needs a fighter and a scrapper. You just have to watch them in the debates to know whose brain works the fastest.
My vote is going to Hillary.
Aileen Laing wrote on October 2, 2007 7:39 PM:Michael, you asked what Hillary has done in the senate and claims she won as "Mrs Bill."
To find out what she has done, perhaps you should ask all those Republican counties in the northern part of the state who turned out for her in high numbers this last election. I don't think they did it becasue she was Mrs. Bill.
Apart from her sentate voting record, I listen to her speak and take command of all those around her. She's not afraid to take on the moderator when it suits her. She is proactive not reactive which I like also.
Barack is good but he's not "done" yet. He needs more time.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 9:03 PM:Michael,
Your question was what exactly is Hillary's experience. I assume you meant political experience. If you recall, Bill campaigned on Hillary being politically active (just like she was in Arkansas as Fist Lady). Remember "Get Two for the Price of One"?
Like it or not, those things qualify as political experience (yes, even for Laura Bush - who lacks only the two Senate campaigns, being a US Senator, and that whole healthcare thing, but other than that I guess).
Why don't you just concede that she's a very experienced politician. Everyone else seems to know it.
Again, when you ask for facts about her experience, and I tender 8 bullet points including two successful Senate campaigns for Jah's sake - your reply is to say "Oh, sure that's sort of experience I guess, but not really."
Again, you remind me of when Mary Matalin said Hillary's Senate victory didn't mean anything if she didn't get 69% of the vote (she got 68%).
Everything I wrote is a bona fide political experience especially for an activist like Hillary. But nothing is bona fide political experience to a Hillary hater.
DonnaG wrote on October 2, 2007 9:06 PM:Here's the fluff from the Clinton web site as copied by Jan: worked with', fought to, continues to work, works to see, visited troops, learned first hand, passed legislation to track health status of [1st example of taking credit for others' actual legislation], original sponsor of [never became law], introduced, been a powerful advocate for, proposed, leading the fight, authored, championed, recognized, supported, helped pass, passed legislation re: drug use in children [second example, even more egregious one, of taking credit for others' work], has not forgotten, serves on committtee.........
Notice, please, what is not there in the fluff generalities. You will not find any specifics that Jan or anyone else can point to in answering Michael's request. There is a reason for that lack of specificality, because Hillary has only a single successful piece of legislation to credit her as a national 'leader' in even the least way, shape, or form from her senate career, and that has to do with extending certain benefits to family caretakers of the handicapped or infirm. Period.
Colonpowwow listed seven bullet points of Hillary's 'political experience', which answer was disingenuous by entirely avoiding the question about her leadership record in the senate.
I am reminded of a philisophical puzzle: "Prove to me that the world wasn't formed a moment ago, complete with memories."
It is that kind of nebulous creation that is used to replace facts and specificity from the Hillary camp, from Hillary's own mouth, and from the words of her supporters.
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 10:07 PM:
DonnaG
Excuse me, but I was only addressing Michael's question on Hillary's political experience. I know that you think she lacks the titanic legislative credentials of, say, Senators Kerry, Edwards, or Obama, but let me give it a go:
As First Lady, she helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
As Senator, she introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is just from part of 2007.
Do you really want me to go on? Will that make any difference in your preconceived notions of Hillary's so-called lack of leadership on issues in the Senate?
Awaiting your apology in 5 . . .4 . . . 3 . . .
colonpowwow wrote on October 2, 2007 10:32 PM:More on Senator Clinton's Senate service:
She sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees, sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
DonnaG wrote on October 2, 2007 11:59 PM:yes, colonpowwow, please go on to the crux of the matter as relates to your list:
How many of these 'accomplishments have resulted in actual law?
1st on your list is not from her senate record, btw.
The Dodd-Clinton Amendment is part of a Schips bill passed less than a week ago and facing a veto. If the veto is successfully overcome, I would consider this an indication of successful leadership. .
As to the College Cost Reduction Act, I can only find Hillary's involvement as one of 21 senators as 'amendment confrerees'. Please cite references to her 'authorship' of provisions, thanks.
I believe the other things you named cannot establish 'leadership' as they simply demonstrate the actual work expected of all senators. All senators introduce among themselves hundreds of bills per year. I define leadership as being able to shepherd bills through to law.
So, Donna G, you're a pretty damn demanding voter! I admire that.
You said: "I define leadership as being able to shepherd bills through to law."
But I haven't been able to find out from your posts who this dream candidate is whom you are supporting in 2008.
SO, WHO'S YOUR CANDIDATE AGAIN?
AND HOW DOES YOUR 2008 CANDIDATE COMPARE TO THIS FLUFF:
Here's the fluff from the Clinton web site as copied by Jan: worked with', fought to, continues to work, works to see, visited troops, learned first hand, passed legislation to track health status of [1st example of taking credit for others' actual legislation], original sponsor of [never became law], introduced, been a powerful advocate for, proposed, leading the fight, authored, championed, recognized, supported, helped pass, passed legislation re: drug use in children [second example, even more egregious one, of taking credit for others' work], has not forgotten, serves on committtee........."
Okay, DonnaG
You win. Hillary hasn't shown leadership on women's rights, children's rights, healthcare, and military benefit issues, much while working in a hostile environment controlled by her political enemies. She also hasn't really worked with all those committees and subcommittees much either probably, or worked with Senators across the aisle in a bipartisan manner that has garnered respect and admiration from even those political rivals.
So,okay, let me know the leadership record and the successful legislation championed into law by your favored candidate and I'll consider switching my primary vote to him if he is more of a leader on issues than Senator Clinton.
Thanking you in advance.
colonpowwow wrote on October 3, 2007 7:51 AM:DonnaG
Oh, and regarding your "1st on your list is not from her senate record, btw." - I thought I indicated that when I preceded it with "As First Lady." My bad (don't you just hate that saying anymore ;-)
So, here's an obvious "BTW" for you as well - when you chair a Senate subcommittee, you are the LEADER of that subcommittee and also a LEADER on the committee that it is attached to.
You're welcome.
Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 8:04 AM:THe inevitability campaign is smokin...33% in WaPo national, 7 million more than Obama
Gotta give the Devil her due. Never a good idea to turn your back on the Clinton Machine...It is too damn good
DonnaG wrote on October 3, 2007 9:02 AM:It took me five years [1997-2002] of my own time and money against impossible odds [30 million to one, in terms of resources] to wade through a purposefully created fog and discover the facts underlying a fifteen year long consumer fraud perpetrated on tens of thousands of victims, me included. That product's performance was poor to mediocre among choices available to consumers, but it was intentionally, slickly, and carefully advertised and priced as superior to all other products. I innocently relied on that advertising and that warranty, only to end up with a considerable loss a few years later.
Groping through that fog, armed with a prayer [Dear God, please shine the light of truth on this situation] and a whole lot of willpower, not to mention the self-taught ability to do pursue my own investigations, I was eventually discovering the structural aspects of the details of how such a fraud could succeed......all of which really slapped me awake about the rot in many layers my own society. That rottenness counts on the trustingness as well as the apathy and/or cynicism of individual citizens.
I am not saying that Hillary's campaign is a fraud, or that she is not a smart, capable, hard working, good senator. I am not even saying that she has no leadership abilities. But, I do notice that her whole campaign relies on a slick packaging of a name-branded 'product'. And, I am saying that I have noticed and am challenging a purposefully created fog surrounding her actual performance. What are the facts showing or not, as the case may be, the evidence we should rely upon for a 'performance warranty' regarding any candidate's leadership and judgment as needed to lead a country? What evidence supports a candidate's claims to 'experience' and ' ability to hit the ground running', and 'to be a change agent'?
Everything sounds so very glowing about her record as put forth by her campaign, until one tries to get to the facts behind the presentation. To simply ask for the facts brings not only obfuscation, but name-calling [hillogynist?!}.
Michael wrote on October 3, 2007 9:11 AM:Yep, Donna G, you are right on. The same scenario applies to virtually all the repukes and clinton. The rest of the dems really aren't playing that game. I get the same type of garbage responses when I play with Mr. 9/11 supporters. The point that I am trying to make is that clinton is no more experienced than obama, soooo why does everyone claim that she is soooo experienced? The emperor has no clothes and I don't want more of the same lies.
Why are clinton and Mr. 9/11 the "national security" candidates, when neither of them have any "national security" experience. Why can't these frauds just be honest????? Why can't the media do its job and ask the tough questions and get an answer. All we get are generalities, based on generalities, based on nothing. I don't get it and it really is disturbing. Politics in this country has to change!!!!!
colonpowwow wrote on October 3, 2007 10:16 AM:Honestly, Michael and DonnaG
Trying to discuss anything about the next president of the United States is like being in some kind of Monty Python episode.
You ask a question and ask to provide information.
A supporter responds with some pertinent information.
You respond, "But it's not pertinent."
We reply, "Yes it is. It directly responds to the question you asked."
You reply, "No it isn't."
So, I'm going to have to leave this episode by just stating the obvious. Since we cannot both be right or both be wrong on something of this nature - let's just leave it to the voters to decide what the truth is re the questions you have re Hillary's experience and leadership.
Works for me.
Peace
Michael wrote on October 3, 2007 10:58 AM:The problem is that you never provide pertient information, just spin and distortion. Admit that you are allegedly supporting clintooon as she is Mrs. Bill and that's it. She has nothing else to run on.
I would rather have webb running than her. At least he is a straight shooter and tells it like it is. He has done more in the senate in what 10 months, than she did in 6 years. This is really absurd. Why can't you people just admit it, you want Mrs. Bill. Like the Mr. 9/11 people want Mr. 9/11. No substance at all, just fluff.
By the way, I am not a "hillary hater." I don't like her, but I don't hate her. I don't hate anyone in fact.
Peace.
