Clinton Finds A Donor Base

I don't find it surprising that she would generate enthusiasm. I find it weird those people came out of the woodwork suddenly on Feb 5th (especially since they were reports of money trouble after the much more damaging Iowa loss).
If they were so many people eager to give so much money, what kind of idiotic fundraising operation does she have that they hadn't plugged into it earlier ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:09 PM

She has a strong well-spring of support among women. I know that is true within my own family, for sure. And she's called for help. I think this will keep them even for the rest of the nominating cycle as small donors start giving her every month as a lot of Obama supporters have started doing.

Posted by Rhoda | February 9, 2008 9:09 PM

Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers.

A lot of her supporters figured she would win easily, and early on didn't really need the money. Obviously it's possible she'll lose, -- and this is clear to everybody -- and her supporters have finally had a big ol' fire lit under their arses.

There's nothing really surprising in this. I just sent her money myself, hope to add more in the coming weeks, and urge all Clinton supporters to do so as well.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 9:14 PM

Considering their complaints that Obama outspent them in these states today, you'd think they would have put some of this money to work so that they didn't get smoked today.

Posted by Dan Pf. in Chicago | February 9, 2008 9:15 PM

Obama is winning big in WA and NE. If he wins LA, then wins with huge margins in MD, VA, and DC, then it may be a matter of too little too late. She could raise $50 million in February and fail to stem the momentum. Remember that Obama raised almost $8 million in 36 hours. I don't know the Clinton camp expects to spin this to their favor.

Posted by Craig | February 9, 2008 9:18 PM

"I don't know the Clinton camp expects to spin this to their favor."

They actually succeeded at spinning her winning MA as a "huge upset". Trust me, they will spin. Chutzpah is not what they lack.

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:22 PM

LOL. You must be kidding me, Marc. Shock that Hillary Clinton has "found" a donor base and is raking in the cash? Give me a break! The shocking numbers were revealed over the past few weeks when it started to look like she was in financial trouble. That was the information which baffled everyone.

Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by LOL | February 9, 2008 9:23 PM

How much of this is for the general election? If they hit up the donors who are maxed out for the primary but not the general, they could do this without too much difficulty. If they don't win the primary, the money goes right back to the donors.

Posted by ben | February 9, 2008 9:26 PM

I have not seen anything from the Clinton camp that specifies how much of this money is available for the primary and how much just for the general election. They've been spinning this as if it were all just primary money, but I would think someone interested in actually reporting the news (as opposed to transcribing it) might ask them the question.

Posted by Fred App | February 9, 2008 9:27 PM

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists.

Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

Uh, what's with the weird crack at a straw man Obama supporter? Got anyone for the record?

Given the virulence of the primary campaign at the moment, it's not at all surprising Clinton is raising money now. What's surprising is that it took her team so long to figure out how to use the Internets.

Posted by Kevin | February 9, 2008 9:34 PM

Geez Marc, you have some real pro-Clinton bitterness showing here. Leave the nasty stuff to the commenters. (Though hopefully not there either)

Posted by Chris O. | February 9, 2008 9:36 PM

I am not surprised about her finances. Given that as many people voted for her as Obama on Tuesday (popular vote wise), why shouldn't she be able to receive just as much online money?

Money is overrated anyways (unless you're broke). Look at Romney and Huckabee runs.

Posted by TonyMak | February 9, 2008 9:37 PM

Benjamin - exactly. It's not surprising she is getting a lot of low-dollar donors. What's surprising is that the Clinton team didn't spend time trying to bring these people along before. Perhaps they thought it would hit her "invincibility" argument early on. Either way, another bad call by the campaign.

Posted by evie | February 9, 2008 9:39 PM

I won't be surprised if Hillay has raised that much money. It has finally dawned on her idiotic fund raisers that instead of going to wealthy donors again and again (who are probably maxed out) go to the internet, just as Obama has raised has done so successfully. Hillary's fundraiser-in-chief should be fired for embarrassing her in having to admit that she came up with $5m from her pocket. That sent a terrible message that people are willing to give her money!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 9, 2008 9:42 PM

I won't be surprised if Hillay has raised that much money. It has finally dawned on her idiotic fund raisers that instead of going to wealthy donors again and again (who are probably maxed out) go to the internet, just as Obama has raised has done so successfully. Hillary's fundraiser-in-chief should be fired for embarrassing her in having to admit that she came up with $5m from her pocket. That sent a terrible message that people are willing to give her money!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 9, 2008 9:42 PM

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh urging his 12 million listeners to "keep her in it so we can win it" had nothing to do with a massive surge in fundraising from new donors...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020708/content/01125114.guest.html

Posted by pw | February 9, 2008 9:44 PM

Again--an accomplishment being minimized. Break this down people--- have some business sense about you. Oh, I forgot I am probably commenting to the Obama Pep Rally force--aka the "crock-us" goers.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 9:47 PM

So apparently Marc is now in the business of making straw man arguments on behalf of unnamed "Obama allies".

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 9:48 PM

Yes, it's quite suspicious but not really surprising. The Billary Machine has done it before, as when the male part of this duo wrongly slammed Obama about the Bush war. It's their desperate attempt to get back to the White House, no matter how they do it.

Posted by Henry G. Schwarz | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM

Wow, the Clinton campaign must have gotten to Marc.

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate some of the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

What is this nonsense? Your posts were never like this in the past.

Marc, how much did Hillary pay you? What did she promise?

Posted by amy | February 9, 2008 9:50 PM

Given that as many people voted for her as Obama on Tuesday (popular vote wise)...

Correction: more people voted for Hillary than Obama on Tuesday.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh urging his 12 million listeners to "keep her in it so we can win it" had nothing to do with a massive surge in fundraising from new donors...

Oh. I so hope you're right. I had wondered if GOP "dirty tricks" might play into things. I'm hoping some Republican voters show up to vote for Hillary in primaries, too. I'm quite confident they'll be bitterly disappointed that they helped nominate a candidate who crushed them in November, but I'll take anything I can get.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 9:53 PM

Jasper ... the official count of the popular vote on Tuesday was 50.2% vs 49.8% excluding the Edwards etc people and that didn't count Alaska (which only reported delegates) and New Mexico.

By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM

By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

What part of "Hillary Clinton won 50,000 more votes than Barack Obama" don't you understand?

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc...

Ahhh, yes. The wonderful grace and magnanimity of the Obamabots.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 10:06 PM

And the Clinton campaign is now hoping this means that the HRC bank is closed for business.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 9, 2008 10:10 PM

CNN just called LA for Obama!

With 32% reporting, it's 53% to 39%.

Obama is 3:0 tonight...

Obama 08

Posted by sue | February 9, 2008 10:11 PM

kelley --- your comment are so, so, so funny!
I personally think the "$5MILLION" loan was another ploy, but I agree that the Clinton donors were probably waiting until Super Tuesday passed. I think that Ambinder's point are not skewed either way, actually - we Obamamamas have been proud as peacocks that our leettle $10 & $100 supporters have keep our Man in the lead financially, and I am hoping that continues to be the case. This is an entirely new kind of "public financing" of campaigns (unlike Edwards' campaign, which relied largely on public tax dollar financing). Why did we think that HRC's folks would not try to get into the same game?? I do find it suspicious that - if most donors were maxed out at $2300 (whatever it is) that she has suddenly amasssed all these NEW DONORS. ALthough many in the electorate support her - other than her historical fans - the newbies would be likely low-income & lower educated females/males & Hispanics/Latinos. In my anacdotal campaign experience this year, these are Hillary's largest supporters nationally. I find it suspicious that they would come up with $10 Million in a week. So, I do suspect some sort of manipulation, but much like the future trading HRC did in the 1990's (parlaying $1000 into $100,000 in less than a year) and many other Clinton fundraising shenanigans (Hsui, anyone?) it is highly doubtful that we'll ever know the entire truth.

Posted by Jean | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM

Jasper, get real.

"By all means 50.2 vs 49.8 in such an environment is as perfect a tie you can get.

What part of "Hillary Clinton won 50,000 more votes than Barack Obama" don't you understand?"

Ben's right. It IS as close in the real world to a tie as you can get. So what?

Posted by chum | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM

He is actually 4:0 tonight as the Virgin Islands overwhelmingly voted for him and he got their ... 3 delegates ! Yaya !

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:15 PM

It's very simple. Her supporters didn't really know she would need support since she had such a great start. When the news came out last week that she needed funds, they responded. Sometimes the media makes these things very complicated. But it's remarkably obvious.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:16 PM

Well I don't listen to Rush. So, I was not aware that he was asking for people to send her money. I know that I was very concerned when I heard that she had to lend her campaign money. I went to her website and gave. It was the first time I had been to her website. It was the first time I had ever given money to a candidate. I too assumed that she had plenty of money. If it was a ploy, it was a smart move because it worked. BTW, I am a black male. So, I don't fit the characterization of old angry feminists, etc.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 10:17 PM

Well, I must be an old, angry feminist. Although, I don't consider myself old. I'm not angry. And I've been liberated since I was a kid. But I made a contribution. Hillary is intensely smart and active. I would like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket, then we could get action and inspiration. The deal-breaker is to keep Bill out of the international mix and leave that to Barack. Then he can get more experience and move up the ladder, as many VPs do.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Oh, I should probably mention that I am a professional with an income well above the median for my metropolitan area. Most of my friends, those who are supporting Obama and those of us supporting Hillary are in the same well-educated, affluent demographic.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

Well, I must be an old, angry feminist. Although, I don't consider myself old. I'm not angry. And I've been liberated since I was a kid. But I made a contribution. Hillary is intensely smart and active. I would like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket, then we could get action and inspiration. The deal-breaker is to keep Bill out of the international mix and leave that to Barack. Then he can get more experience and move up the ladder, as many VPs do.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

I really think the net effect will be to inspire Obama donors. It has me.

Posted by Hermes | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM

I'm a Clinton donor and while I can't speak for everyone I'll offer my reasons for giving to the campaign at this point in time:

1. I wasn't aware that she needed money. Now that I know, I'm more than willing to help.
2. I am responding to the hateful, Clinton-bashing tone of the Obama campaign (as witnessed by the vast majority of comments on this page) and the heavily biased media.
3. I am angry about what appears to be abuse, by the Obama campaign, of the caucus system. I find it suspicious that Obama has not done nearly as well in states holding standard, secret ballot primaries.

I am only one person, of course, and a sample of one does not make a statistic. But the question has been raised and this is one Clinton supporter's response.

Posted by Mark | February 9, 2008 10:28 PM

1. I wasn't aware that she needed money. Now that I know, I'm more than willing to help.

Fair enough. More power to you.

2. I am responding to the hateful, Clinton-bashing tone of the Obama campaign (as witnessed by the vast majority of comments on this page) and the heavily biased media.

Comments on blogs do not reflect on the actual campaign. I don't know where you got the idea that the Obama campaign has been particularly agressive coz that's not how I am seeing it. And to be fair Hillary commenters have not been particularly kind to Obama in return. So let's not pretend this is one-sided here.

3. I am angry about what appears to be abuse, by the Obama campaign, of the caucus system. I find it suspicious that Obama has not done nearly as well in states holding standard, secret ballot primaries.

Roll Eyes. Seriously ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:31 PM

Obama is a good, solid citizen and I wish him the best in politics. He has a bright future. But I did an analysis of his Senatorial performance, and he doesn't really work that hard. He speaks well, but he only voted 56% of all opportunities in his tenure thus far. Clinton voted 81% of the time. That's a sizable difference. I want a hard-working president for a change. I'd like to see a Clinton-Obama ticket. They will lose the Senate and Clinton is much more moderate. It's a good pair.

Posted by Leigh | February 9, 2008 10:33 PM

Difference is, Leigh, that he has been running for President for a large part of his tenure while Hillary Clinton has spent seven years in the Senate not running for anything.
Arguably, you can discuss the experience thing but the comparison is not comparable.
Give us numbers that compare 2004-2008 where they BOTH were in the Senate and we will go from there

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 10:40 PM

I'm not surprised by the huge amount she's raising from ordinary people. When her supporters found out she was in trouble, they came out to support her. Has anyone noticed that most of the states Obama is winning will vote Republican in November? How does that help Democrats? Hillary won all the major states, including Florida which is considered a swing state. She's the better choice for Democrats.

Posted by goldenstate | February 9, 2008 10:41 PM

Whooooohooooooooooooo Hillary rocks! She is getting more and more funds. She is going all the way and she will win.

If she don't win, look out the republicans will win.

Posted by Qster | February 9, 2008 10:44 PM

So, this "old feminist" (sorry, not "angry" -- weary and exasperated, but not angry) is a first time donor to HRC -- and this week. I've held off giving to anyone until I thoroughly reviewed issues and made a decision about who to support in the primary. I've done so, and am now solidly on board as a HRC supporter. My state has yet to hold its primary.

A general concern I do have is the level of venom in many of these posts and those I've read on other sites. I would certainly hope that all of us remember that only one of these two candidates will become the Democratic presidential candidate -- and either one would be far superior to any the Republicans have to offer. I would also hope that in this contest to win the nomination, we don't turn against each other to the point that we arm the Republicans for a win in November.

Despite our current differences or our energetic support for our individual candidate, we will need to come together in the general election if we want to see any kind of change in the White House come January. Despite the rhetoric, BOTH the Democratic candidates offer change and hope for the future.

Posted by rob m | February 9, 2008 10:46 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

Wow -- so much for Obama's inspiration rubbing off on his supporters; if he has attitudes like yours, he'll have a hard time working with dems who didn't support him, much less republicans.

The reality is that Leigh is right -- he hasn't worked hard while in the Senate and we need someone who is nor only willing to work hard but also understands the ropes in Washington and knows how to make it work for the greater good.

Posted by excitedto vote | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm going to sell items on ebay to send to her campaign. It's a struggle to buy necessities but I know it will be so worth it in the long run to have a compassionate, beautiful, holy woman in the White House.

Posted by realmendontvoteforhillary com | February 9, 2008 10:51 PM

Well since Clinton supporters are not highly affluent or college kids with wealthy parents paying the Visa bills maybe they had to save up before they could contribute. It is a more difficult choice to give when that money would otherwise go to put food on the table instead of a trip to Whistler or a new iPod.

Posted by ode to kelley | February 9, 2008 10:52 PM

Obama is dangerous. I have not seen this much propaganda in a long time. I wish America understood that the pep rallies he is winning are "crock-causes" and disenfranchise the majority of voters through time constraints, intimidation, public chastising and obnoxious, irreverent youth. It is all a strategic game with any politician and poker player. Just keep enough chips to be close when heads up and then pounce your opponent with an "All IN". This is going to be so fun when Hillary wins.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 10:54 PM

Clean sweep for oBama, I guess obamaites will want to say "Happy mini-super tuesday"

Posted by Dear-Marco-Polo | February 9, 2008 10:57 PM

"Now these numbers are looked at with suspicion by Obama allies. They can't possibly see how Clinton could generate some of the same enthusiasm that Obama does -- they can't stand comparisons of his donors to hers."

Which Obama allies are those? Names? Sources? As an Obama supporter, I hadn't thought, until the 5 million news came out, that Hillary couldn't hold her own on the financing front. Remember a few months ago Marc? She was "inevitable?" Part of that was all the money coming in. Moreover, as we know, there certainly are a lot of Hillary supporters out there. It is good for them that they have figured out how to tap into that.

Posted by David | February 9, 2008 10:58 PM

Obama and his supporters are bringing the country together.

Can you idiots hear yourselves? Obama supporters are the most hateful idiots I think I've ever heard from any candidate, ever. I'll vote for Obama now right after hell freezes over.

Posted by Anita | February 9, 2008 11:02 PM

This whole primary has been so painful to me. I am a longtime activist. I worked with the UFW in the 70s, Jesse Jackson in the 80s, antinuke movement, antiwar activities,etc. I thought I would stay out of this primary because I like everyone. I now support Hillary because I was a grownup watching her get annihilated by the press and still carrying on. I have seen Obama turn into your standard politican really quickly before my eyes. I don't feel he is a deeply unifying force like he claims to be. He could have won me over if I felt his generosity towards Clinton about what she has survived or talked up for Kucinich's inclusion in the debates. I am giving my support to Hillary because she does have more experience and I believe she cares. As a far as the older women thing, we have been fighting the good fight a long time and we have worked hard for mediocre candidates because the Republican platform and leadership are basically unacceptable. I would welcome a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Don't be slinging the mud, be the unifiers.

Posted by pattijo | February 9, 2008 11:09 PM

Jasper,

Would you like to run the voter tally again after tonight?

Posted by James in NJ | February 9, 2008 11:10 PM

Jasper,

Would you like to run the voter tally again after tonight?

On a different note, as an Obama supporter I am totally not surprised by Hillary's fundraising. It makes total sense. Nobody really knew she was having money problems (man these candidates are blowing through cash fast), and then she went public with the loan. If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd have given money too. And good for her. It's an impressive haul.

Posted by James in NJ | February 9, 2008 11:13 PM

From Progressive Democrats of America:

"No matter who we've supported so far for president, many PDAers have seen firsthand
the enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama.

The Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues, but our engagement with the inspiring Obama movement--which includes tens of thousands of open-minded newcomers to activism--leaves us hopeful. "

No, the Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues.

But why would one pay attention to silly retro things like issues, eh?

Why attend to issues when there's "New! new! youth! change! hope! change! shiny! shiny! new!" to be had.

We voting for Prom King?

I made up my mind when I saw the MTV debates and she knew every issue in and out and had a plan to deal with it. Not just platitudes.

I sent money to Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5. And I'll do it again.

She won convincingly in my very very liberal state, mostly by votes from the working-class poor. Not by votes from the wealthy, and even though she was opposed by Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:15 PM

"These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists." Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM

Well, you're quite the charmer, kelley. What's got your panties in a twist, eh?

Looking forward to more hope! change! hope!-meisters just like you.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:22 PM

"But unless the Clinton campaign is just flat out lying...something is going on here that we can't fully appreciate or understand just it."

Say, Marc, when you "appreciate" or "understand" what is going on let me know.

I think I know.

My guess is that HRC's appeals to women, which is divisive and exclusionary, works in raising money. But eventually women who support HRC solely because of her gender, will realize that they are being used by a politician for one base reason, to be elected president. It's about HRC, not us.

HRC's record is replete with pitting people and demographics against one another, and this instance is a clear example. Her past will be our future should she be elected: a divisive incrementalist, corporatist, and strong supporter of the military-industrial complex. That is her record if you take a close look.

Her campaign tactics from here on out will tell you what a Clinton3 administration. Look before you leap...

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
06/13/07
THE HILL

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), also a Democratic presidential candidate and Clinton’s rival for the nomination, has only one request in the defense bill.

Obama, who is not a member of the committee, made a request along with several other members for a Department of Education program for children with severe disabilities.

Posted by Marc B Adin | February 9, 2008 11:22 PM

I hope that the Dems don't self-destruct when we are so close. While I have never bought into the idea that the Republicans have been so weakened by this administration that the Dems can't possibly lose, it is clear to me that the time is finally ripe for Hillary to win. I have been watching Obama from the word go. I bought both of his books and went to see him in 2006 when he was down here campaigning for Ford, Jr. I, like a lot of people, instantly saw the potential for our first black president. It did not at the time occur to me that many within our party would so gleefully brush aside the first woman with anything like a serious shot at the White House to advance him to the head of the class. I have never felt what I believe is fear on the part of many that a woman cannot be elected president. I don't care if the right wing media call us girly men or manly women for nominating a woman. We are the party of real opportunity. When someone has tilled the soil as Hillary has done these many years, she can reap the benefits in our party. Fear and genuine admiration may indeed propel Barack to the nomination, but at what price? What message are really sending to our women, children (especially our daughters)and to to the Republican party? Ultimately, not a good one, no matter how we try to rationalize or spin it.

Posted by darin | February 9, 2008 11:27 PM

"women who support HRC solely because of her gender"

Nobody supports Hillary Clinton because of her gender, dude. Or dudette, as the case may be.

If that were so, we'd be equally happy to vote for Condi Rice, would we not?

Stupid.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 9, 2008 11:32 PM

I thank God that Hillary campaign is now raising a large amount of campaign funds, God is really blessing her now. I was one of the first donors who donated to her cause, when I found out that Hillary lending money to support her campaign I responded just like thousands of her other loyal followers did, I don't see nothing wrong with that. The Obama staff needs to stop worrying about how Hillary is getting a surge in campaign donations and concentrate on Obamas. I hope and Pray that people still donate to her cause in very large numbers, because sure I am. If any Hillary supporters are reading my post, Please continue to donate and Bless and show your love for Hillary, because it takes money to run and wage a competitive campaign against her opponent, not just talk, so lets put our money where our mouths is, lets fight back very very very hard with our massive donations and votes at the polls and Prayers to God to put her in the White House in 2009. Hillary has paid her dues to become the President of the United States of America

Please don't count Hillary out yet, because God works in so many mysterious ways, that man cannot understand, I'm sure Obama understands this, because he says he's a Christan, so he should know actually what I'm talking about, Obama should be very familiar with how God operates. God has men scratching their heads,and saying how can this be, Hillary never raised this much money this fast in such short time span in the past, there must be something crookit going on here,No People, I truly believe in my Heart, Soul and Spirit that's not happening in Hillary's Campaign, but I say never underestimate the power of God, and the awesome power he holds, I Pray a lot for Hillary and her campaign staff and so far, God is answering many prayers.

Go Hillary!!, and May God Bless Your Presidential Campaign Greatly, I'm Looking For A Miracle, and Expecting The Impossible.

Posted by Darrell | February 9, 2008 11:35 PM

Obama does not have broad appeal to voters. Either he can win the anti-democratic caucuses where only a few hardcore activists show up or win primaries in which the AA vote is high. He is yet to win a big state with a broad cross-section of voters outside of his home state. He lost New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, California, Michigan and Florida. He will lose Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

The only reason he is still in this race is because the nominating rules have been so rigged by Dean and Brazille to favor Obama. If Democrats used a winner-take-all system like Republicans, Obama will be behind by at least 400 delegates.

The Nebraska primary had 26,000 voters show up. 26,000 voters is nothing. Washington state has a primary on Feb 19. Yet, the state chooses to allocate delegates based on an anti-democratic caucus.

Obama simply cannot win big states. His coalition is just not broad enough for him to win him these states. If he is the nominee because of a rigged process, he will lose the entire south, entire mountain west and will lose all of the states in the industrial mid-west. He will be a huge disaster for our party and take with him our congressional candidates. We might very well lose the house with him.

Posted by SRK | February 9, 2008 11:40 PM

Call me suspicious, but Hillary failed to mention the "loan" to her campaign until after it was done and AFTER she had reported her January numbers, the "magic" $13.5 million. For a campaign -- who has Terry McAuliffe at its helm -- it strikes me as odd that all of a sudden Clinton is one day out of money and all of a sudden back in the chips. That one day her staffers are going without pay, and two days later have real checks and not the rubber, bouncing kind.

Call me cynical, but something is rotten in Denmark, and it ain't poor Yorick's brain.

Posted by jade7243 | February 9, 2008 11:52 PM

I am going to chime in here. Has anyone here recognized the laws that protect us from unlawful hiring practices? Namely, the EEOC. All candidates are being hired for the POTUS. At the primary level, the voters are the Interviewer of the interviewee (candidates). The sexism, disrespect, slander, biased media, filth slung toward a qualified applicant such as Senator Clinton is both appalling and ghastly. To negate her accomplishments on every level via media control and the internet should motivate everyone who believes in the rights of the EEOC to file a class action suit against the FCC, DNC and whoever governs these situations. Let me give you an example of one situation--apparently months ago The South Park show had a cartoon character of Hillary and placed a bomb up her vagina and blew her up. NOW I do not know about the readers of this blog but I consider that an act of violence, rape, and mindset of terrorism (hence the bomb). How about that South Park under the auspices of free speech and entertainment promoting those elements of indifference toward a Former First Lady and sitting Senator of the United States of America. When are people with a conscience going to realize that this alone denotes a 'hate crime'. As a Doctor, I am totally appalled at the abuse that Hillary is taking as a woman during this campaign and I invite both men and women that are not jaded by their life experiences to date to just go into their hearts and ask themselves, "Why are we treating a woman candidate this way, because I surely have not read or seen an Obama character with a bomb placed up the orifice of his penis for sake of entertainment? My final thought to intelligent voters is this, Vote for Hillary because she is qualified and Obama is not, it is just that simple.

Posted by josephine | February 9, 2008 11:52 PM

Thank you for writing this article. Between the blogs and the press it seems that coverage on this campaign is seriously biased towards Obama. Obviously, Clinton has an amazing base. She was the parties first choice and has been an amazing democrat. Obamas campaign is a flash in the pan. We all want change. The question really is who can do it. She can.

Posted by sasha | February 9, 2008 11:55 PM

SRK: Care to explain how the rules were "rigged by Dean and Brazille to favor Obama?" As far as I know, the proportional system has been in place for decades. Also, it is up to states to choose whether they want to caucus or do a primary. Personally, I think a primary is probably the better route to go, but, it isn't up to me or Dean or Brazille to decide.

How could it be the case that Obama cannot win big states and yet still win the nomination? Could it be because he is cleaning up in smaller states and holding his own in big states (by a few percentage points)? I mean, you are sounding a little conspiratorial SRK. One might presume, with Hillary inheriting Bill Clinton's machine that she might have been able to stop the evil machinations against her. Or not?

Posted by david | February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

I donated money for Hillary...I think she's making history. Every political event that Mr. Obama attends is such a media savvy, scripted and orchestrated affair. His arrival, getting on the stage, greeting, the background faces, all of it with the help of camera work and lighting, done with perfect pitch and timing for the news cast footage, for the maximum effect-- like Hitler’s big frenzied rallies in Berlin─ using all the elements of the stagecraft. His image is so well manufactured for the consumption and the manipulation of the public, Mr. Obama’s politics looking more and more like a Hollywood production than a real life political event. While Mr. Obama’s message is about change, what Mr. Obama really does seemed to be steeped in corporate media that cheered us along in a very big way to the quagmire in Iraq. Mr. Obama also claims to be MLK and even JFK, without having done tiniest fraction of the vast accomplishments of MLK or JFK. Mr. Obama even lacks a sustentative legislative record. But for American media deeds have little value if you have the right image. I watch Mr. Obama’s rise in alarm for the sake of America’s future. His arrogance, his hubris is unsurpassed in American politics. I find him and his message without a clear political logic or details, more suited for TV audience, no discussion of issues, programs or policies, rather his speeches are full of name dropping and all sorts of claims, rich in platitudes and slogans. How come Mr. Obama’s embracing the Kennedy Camelot of the 60’s is considered going forward and if Hillary Clinton looks back to the 90’s for guidance─ now that’s considered going backwards?

Do your raalize that Mr. Obama was a heavy smoker untill recently, before he cleaned up his act,including destroing his appointment books as a state senator. He smoked hevily for years; and I think he carries a larger health risk than John McCain's age. Think about it...Remember Paul Thongus?

Posted by chandraperera | February 9, 2008 11:59 PM

Leigh
An Hillary/Obama ticket, you are dreaming.
Obama is a movement now and he is likely to be well ahead by Tuesday night. I don't even see an Obama/Clinton ticket as Obama can find somebody less controversial for a running mate, someone like Jim Webb perhaps!

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 10, 2008 12:05 AM

josephine:

I agree with your outrage about the South Park incident, and we all know Chris Matthews has said some ridiculously sexist stuff abotu Hillary, but I find it curious that you spend 9/10s of your post talking about that and then at the end say that you should vote for Hillary because she is "qualified." And Obama is "not."

From the tone of your argument it seems more like you are saying, vote for Hillary, because there are sexist jerks out there. Now, I agree, there are sexist jerks out there, but that isn't a reason to vote for HIllary to my mind.

Moreover, is it really true that Obama is "not qualified" to be President? Now, if you were to say, hey, Hillary has more experience at national politics, or that you think she has better policies, or seems more competent, I wouldn't quibble, because those are reasonable statements to make. But do you really think Obama is "not qualified?" That's a pretty strong statement--and I wonder what you will do if he wins the nomination? I personally will support Hillary enthusiatically if she wins; will you support someone you don't think is qualified? Would you give the election to John McCain?

Posted by daivd | February 10, 2008 12:06 AM

David, I appreciate your response. You said, "From the tone of your argument it seems more like you are saying, vote for Hillary, because there are sexist jerks out there." No, that is not the reason to vote for her--she is qualified and that is the reason. The other 9/10ths of the post as you stated is for awareness purposes of the absolute evidence of insanity toward this woman and the lack of social consciousness involved. You asked, will I support someone else if she is not nominated. The answer is that I will stay home. I do not vote for an individual because of party loyalty -- I vote for an individual for the sake of being accountable for my own voting decisions and belief systems and research and understandings of the politics of the government, as absolutely and complicated they are and what I can reasonably extrapolate from prior to making a choice prior to final decision making. I have assessed that McCain is a war-monger, Obama is not qualified and Huckabee is just as unqualified.

Posted by josephine | February 10, 2008 12:20 AM

Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists.

Posted by kelley | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM
WAY TO GO KELLEY! THAT POST WILL BRING OUT ANOTHER 500,000 "ANGRY OLD WHITE FEMINISTS" TO DONATE TO HILLARY CLINTON! AND MAYBE EVEN ANOTHER 200,000 "PANSY PIE FACED WHITE BOYS" TOO! HAHAHAHAHAHA GO HILLARY!

Posted by NURSERATCHET | February 10, 2008 12:25 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

What we have are two very popular Democratic candidates. I think the fund raising strategies of the campaigns were different in the beginning. And that now, Senator Clinton has focused on the multiple donations from folks who had not donated before or who had been untapped. Both campaigns are phenomenal fund raising machines. It is staggering to think what it costs to run these campaigns.

I'm neither an angry feminist nor a pansy white faced white boy but as an informed professional, six figure earning, educated Latina, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas Primary.

I believe the nation is hungry for a change from the Bush years. Either of the Democratic candidates will be making history.

What I don't like in this blog and in the media is the Clinton bashing. One can make their case without the sexism. The media struck a new low when Chelsea became a target. The "sport" has gone too far.

Imagine the outrage if something similar was said about Sen. Obama's daughter, or other family member. That would be called RACISM. Rightfully, there would be a public outrage if that were to occur.

Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to be able to tolerate a lot of gender bashing in the name of "news".

Posted by Rozanna | February 10, 2008 12:48 AM

I donated $100.00 since super Teusday just like other people. No one knew she was cash strapped.

Posted by amy | February 10, 2008 1:18 AM

No matter how clever the Clinton camp's rhetoric becomes in regards to claiming their electability, I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good or better of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November. And lastly, poeple who follow Obama close enough know that he is well versed on the issues, he is just more selective about when he chooses to discuss them (i.e. on the campaign trail he focuses his efforts on his message of hope and unity and in debates he discusses the specific issues in their entirety.) In my humble opinion, these are few of many reasons why he continues to gain support.

Posted by Paul | February 10, 2008 1:28 AM

HRC may have raised 10 million but now she says she LOANED the 5 million to herself, so the money I gave her will be used to pay herself back. She really has raised only 5 million. We who have been giving HRC our tax refund checks or dipping into savings or giving up treats to fund her campaign are funding a woman who is estimated to have between 10 and 25 million between she and Bill.

Why do I who make less than 45K a year need to subsidize a couple of millionaires like she and Bill?

What happened to all the millions from all the interest groups who support her? Do we just keep funding her as she recklessly loses all her money AND votes?

Posted by susan | February 10, 2008 1:44 AM

As a young (25 year old) black male supporting Hillary Clinton I am awed and offended by the despicable attacks I have read in the comments posted by Barack Obama supporters. It's ironic to me that the Obama campaign, which has prided itself so highly on it's "character, integrity and being right on day one" has somehow simultaneously succeeded at defacing the heart and soul of the democratic party, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

With that said, I genuinely believe that politically-speaking there is absolutely no difference between these two candidates. They share the same talking points. The only difference between these two candidates is their race, gender, age and experience. And, when it comes to public office, generally of those 4 items, experience is typically seen as a positive. But, alas, it seems that America prefers a candidate who is a superior orator than one who is a proven (time and again) successful candidate that offers a clear and definitely means to get these goals achieved (not the rhetoric of "different equals better" - which was the rhetoric of George W. Bush in 2000).

I am a hardcore democrat and have voted for a democrat in every single election I could possibly participate in since I turned 18. And I will, therefore, support whichever candidate is chosen by the American people and the democratic national party. But, with America at the brink of diseaster, the prospect of a president wasting anytime "figuring out" how to be president, when he/she could be fixing the problems of America seems like a shame and immediately removes any of the alleged "hope" for a quick rejuvenation of our struggling nation.

As for the fund-raising question...I assumed she had enough money, and when I found out otherwise, I gave her everything I could. Sometimes being the front-runner works against you, and being the underdog has it's perks (as Obama experienced in the last month, and now Hillary will experience in the coming month).

Posted by SCHRC Supporter | February 10, 2008 1:45 AM

Anybody who can quit smoking while running for President shows amazing strength. I am a reformed smoker so know how difficult quitting is. Because of his strength, his drug use was minimal both in time and lasting effect. He should be a hero to anyone addicted to anything (Even sex Bill…)

Posted by Madge | February 10, 2008 1:48 AM

Now I remember who Obama reminds me of "The dude is Urkel with a better tailor." Wish I could claim that line.

Posted by josephine | February 10, 2008 1:52 AM

My vote and money is for Senator Clinton. I recently donated for the first time (to any candidate) a night ago. I'm so passionate that I have been telling all my associates to do the same. BO is the cool guy, but my vote is with starkist, it does not just look good.

On another note, if African Americans believe its going to be economically better with a president of the same race, the research does not support it. Will post dissertation discussing the matter soon.

Posted by Michael | February 10, 2008 1:53 AM

What are the odds that she will pimp out this ginned up feud with Schuster to raise money?

Posted by CC | February 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Dear SCHRC Supporter,

Since gender, age and color are superficial to the discussion, then Experience is the ticket it would seem to you.
Obama has more legislative experience as an elected official than Hillary:
Obama: Illinois Senate: 1997-2004; U.S. Senate: 2004-2008
Hillary has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2001.

He has 10 years to her 7. Picking menus and the Christmas tree for the White House doesn’t count in my books as “experience”. Do they do in yours?

Posted by Suzanna | February 10, 2008 1:59 AM

Barack Obama was a light smoker not a heavy smoker. And he should be congratulated for quiting.

The Hillary supporters always sound so mad and angry. I'm tired of the people in our Country being angry. We need to move on.

No more Clintons or Bushs in the White House.

And there will never be a Obama/Clinton combo ticket. Bill would just get in the way. I think Obama has alot better choices for a Vice. And it would be great if some women would be on his short list. I'd love to see Hillary replace Harry Reid.

Posted by Judy | February 10, 2008 2:09 AM

Someone in the comments section of Kevin Drum's blog said it best: The Barack Script ("Hope, hope, hope, gurgle blah blah blah") may win out over Hillary's actual policy knowledge and toughness... then the inevitable McCAIN SCRIPT takes over. Which goes like this: "Most liberal Senator... weak on everything... coke-head... never served his country..." A vote for Barack now equals a vote for McCain in November.

Wake up, dumb fucks. You are not 17 like all of Barack's half-wit supporters, are you? Do you have a brain? Do you want Kerry/Edwards '04 all over again?

Barack Obama = John Kerry. Period.

Posted by SomeoneWhoDoesn'tWantMcCainToWin | February 10, 2008 2:17 AM

But unless the Clinton campaign is just flat out lying, which I will stipulate is most likely not the case, something is going on here that we can't fully appreciate or understand just it.

It was suburban women.

Posted by donna darko | February 10, 2008 2:23 AM

Hillary's experience clearly falls short when it comes to financials. How can you go through $100 million and not see it coming? I guess 35 years of Washington luncheons doesn't mean 35 years of real life experience.

Posted by Carolyn | February 10, 2008 2:25 AM

Hillary's experience clearly falls short when it comes to financials. How can you go through $100 million and not see it coming? I guess 35 years of Washington luncheons doesn't mean 35 years of real life experience.

Posted by Carolyn | February 10, 2008 2:25 AM

I'm one of the Hillary supporters who donated to her cause for the first time since Super Tuesday. I've always supported her and rooted for her cause which are MY cause, but due to financial difficulties (I'm a poor grad student) did not feel I could give much. But after Tuesday, it became clear to me that in order for Hillary to keep her financial momentum and continue to represent us the economically struggling underdogs, we, especially because we are struggling financially, must help her fight with every dollar we could afford.

I gave $275 and feel absolutely good about it. In hard times like these, I want someone who's going to go in there and get things done, make those negotiations, navigate the political red tapes, and make real, pragmatic, and no-nonsense changes so that we CAN realize our dreams and visions.

I don't believe for a second in Obama's pie in the sky. He doesn't get my money, and he sure ain't getting my vote.

Posted by Helen Nelson | February 10, 2008 2:33 AM

I'm one of the Hillary supporters who donated to her cause for the first time since Super Tuesday. I've always supported her and rooted for her cause which are MY cause, but due to financial difficulties (I'm a poor grad student) did not feel I could give much. But after Tuesday, it became clear to me that in order for Hillary to keep her financial momentum and continue to represent us the economically struggling underdogs, we, especially because we are struggling financially, must help her fight with every dollar we could afford.

I gave $275 and feel absolutely good about it. In hard times like these, I want someone who's going to go in there and get things done, make those negotiations, navigate the political red tapes, and make real, pragmatic, and no-nonsense changes so that we CAN realize our dreams and visions.

I don't believe for a second in Obama's pie in the sky. He doesn't get my money, and he sure ain't getting my vote.

Posted by Helen Nelson | February 10, 2008 2:33 AM

Dear Suzanna,

Once again, I am impressed by the negativity and divisiveness of Obama supporters...it's inspirational, it certainly inspires me to continue supporting my candidate.

As for your spin on the years of experience, I will address directly what I believe is experience. Although, you may minimize all the work she did as the first lady to tackle Universal Health Care at a time when it was not the buzz word of the campaign (and mind you, I am very aware that she did not succeed, but it shows her life-long dedication and incredible foresight, and I highly doubt that she will fail at completing that task again). She also served as an international ambassador for women's rights around the world, which is invaluable diplomatic experience that in no way equates to "Picking menus and the Christmas tree for the White House."

What I do believe will put her in the position to not wasting time trying to figure out "how to be president" is the fact that she has all of the resources and knowledge in her first-spouse ex-President Bill Clinton. Now...don't try to spin that as he will be running the white house, and or that I am somehow equating his experience as a direct translation into experience for her. What I am saying is that in addition to all of the vast experience she gained as a proactive first lady (not a Laura Bush who just visits libraries and reads to children), she will additionally have immediate and unlimited access to what I believe to be the best advisor and support network currently available, her husband, which will puts her in a position to not miss a beat on "day one."

Also, let's be honest...being a Illinois State Senator for 7 years pales in comparison to being a U.S. Senator...they're not even in the same ball game. And, I am clearly biased, but I think it pales in comparison to actively (not passively) playing the supporting role to the most powerful position in the world, but that's just my personal opinion...clearly, you think otherwise.

I enjoyed your interpretation of the numbers and experience, it's a good point, but let's not be insulting and minimize the contributions of the Clintons to our country and the world just because you like Barack Obama...it's petty and childish.

Posted by SCHRC Supporter | February 10, 2008 2:35 AM

I'm one of those ex Hillary supporters who knows when to cut my losses. She can't beat McCain.

Posted by Ethel | February 10, 2008 2:37 AM

My wife donated $1000 immediately when she saw the news that Hillary campaign is short in funding. I only donated $100 this time. We both are first time donors. But we are prepared for additional donations. I believe there are many people like us.

Posted by shaw | February 10, 2008 2:40 AM

Congrats to Obama for the clean sweep tonight. It will be interesting to see if his strategy for doing "grassroot" politics and winning states with smaller delegate numbers pays off.

No doubt, Hillary went with the larger states and if she gets Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania...she will end up with the most delegates at the end.

Florida and Michigan are going to be a real problem for the Democrats, tho. I think they cannot ignore these two states. My take is they should let Florida stand as it is because no candidate campaigned there. I know Obama's supporters will complain, but hey, remember the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina elections had already taken place before Florida voted.

Michigan should hold another election tho because Obama did take his name off the ballot.

This has been an unbelievable election year. Lots of ups and downs for both candidates. No doubt Obama's rise has been amazing, but Clinton is still very much in the contest. If Obama can win any of the big states in March he will win the nomination, if not, its Hillary for sure.

Glad to see Huckabee winning Louisiana and Kansas. I think the conservatives are letting America know they are not happy with McCain.

This is fun.

Posted by carol | February 10, 2008 2:40 AM

"I find it weird those people came out of the woodwork suddenly on Feb 5th"

I gave before. I'm scheduled to give a little each month through November...when she asked because the campaign was in trouble...i gave a little more towards the effort. My friend did as well. If she needs more...and we're still under the cap...we will give again.

Tears come to my eyes when SHE speaks...SHE inspires me. She has my support...if she asks me for a little extra...I will give a little extra...SHE is the one.

Posted by lb | February 10, 2008 2:43 AM

My husband started donating to Obama right away when he saw that Hillary can't beat McCain.

Posted by Ethel | February 10, 2008 2:46 AM

Suzanna:

Obama may have been in the Illinois Senate, but he never accomplished all that much. He voted present many times, instead of taking a stand. He's indecisive. Hillary was a very successful attorney before she became a Senator or First Lady. Her accomplishments are far more impressive than Obama's. Take a look at their bios on their websites and see for yourself. When Hillary talks about experience, she means life experience.

Posted by goldenstate | February 10, 2008 2:49 AM

I've been a Democratic voter all my life, and started out so excited by this primary and the choices we had among candidates. I began with the new and exciting Obama, went to Clinton, considered Edwards, stayed with Clinton. I've known her record for some time, and I think she's an excellent candidate, and the best.

However, I assumed I'd be supporting whoever won the Democratic nomination.

Sadly I've decided of late that I won't be supporting Obama if he wins the primary. Not so much because of what the candidate himself has said -- but mostly because of my experience with the Obama campaign, and how I feel that reflects on his future leadership and where it would bring this country.

That means, unless Senator Clinton wins, and since I can't support a Republican (they don't represent my views enough), my vote shall be a singular protest ... a write in, a third party candidate, and, if we get McCain or a Huckabee ... well, let the Obama movement learn .. and let the Democrats clean up their house once and for all. People have rights in elections, including the right to their opinion and the right to break ranks and let leadership at all levels deal with their own mess.

Which includes getting their stuff together as a group, and unifiedly supporting universal health care with a mandate. The latest study shows that Obama's plan costs much more and covers many less. Plus, given the reality of the cruel opposition, would likely leave Americans with nothing, in the end.

A trojan horse.

Obama has beautiful oratory skills, but Clinton has the record and delivers on the necessary specifics.

And interestingly, for all his talk on the war, she delivers on the specifics more there, too. And has more support among key Senate members who initially voted against the invasion.

Her administration would be better, her high court appointments would be better, and her presidency would bring inspiration and hope to oppressed women throughout the world.

Posted by SomeoneWhoNoLongerCaresIfMcCainWins | February 10, 2008 2:51 AM

I’ve just make my first political donation in my life. I can’t stand hate towards Hillary from Obama supporters and media.

Posted by tt | February 10, 2008 2:54 AM

BTW, I'm too WhoNoLongerCaresIfMcCainWins for the same reasons. Hate must not be rewarded.

Posted by tt | February 10, 2008 2:58 AM

I gave $100 to Hillary since Super Tuesday.

She can beat McCain. Obama? Please.. McCain and the GOP are already talking heavily about national security issues, how is Obama with no experience going to convince voters he can be trusted with the country? Obama is losing rural voters, working class voters, Latino voters, Catholic voters - key swing voters in November!

Posted by d g | February 10, 2008 3:00 AM

Did anyone hear the speeches in Virginia tonight. Clinton's speech was amazing...Obama's speech was arrogant. He reminded me of Bush after Bush won the election in '04 - you remember "I got some political capitol and I'm gonna spend it" speech.It was like that. Had he been at one of his ralleys it would have been fine but that wasn't the theme of the evening and he made himself look like a jerk.

Too bad because I really want to be enthusiastic about him if he does get the nomination...a month ago I was so excited because I felt enthusiastic about Clinton, Obama and Edwards...now I wish Edwards was the one running neck and neck with her that way I could be enthusiastic if he happened to beat her out.

I wonder if Ralph Nader will run?

I'm just kidding about that.

Posted by lb | February 10, 2008 3:02 AM

No you were right the first time. It's just flat out lying.

Posted by Billy C | February 10, 2008 3:05 AM

Judy:

I've read a lot of posts by Obama supporters and some of them are very mean-spirited. Obama is just as divisive as Hillary. Look at the comments on this board.

Posted by goldenstate | February 10, 2008 3:14 AM

This is hilarious! I want to see how late I can keep the Clinton campaign up! (And no, unlike you I don't work for a campaign)! I want a Democrat in the White Houses and it's still true, Hillary has too many negatives to beat McCain!

Posted by Ethel | February 10, 2008 3:17 AM

Sure fire $$$. Go to any online betting place that accepts election bets. Choose John McCain. If Barack Obama were to be the nominee, there is no way most HRC supporters would back him. We want national healthcare too badly (we think it would happen 4 years latewr with a good Dem) and we have been treated very poorly by the B. O. supporters. The B. O. supporters don't care about national health care. They won't back us if we win. We also tend to be more conservative. So, it is not that tough for us to go for a moderate Republican. Bet on John McCain for the presidency. Make a few bucks.

Posted by John McCain is the next President; make bets now. | February 10, 2008 3:43 AM

"Obama and his supporters are bringing the country together."

I took part in our Washington State caucus today, as a Hillary supporter, and from what I observed - the above statement is far from the truth.

First of all, I'm a 49 yr. old woman who has watched and taken interest in Barack Obama for the last couple of years. When I first heard him speak I remember thinking - wow - this guy is something else! Such a gifted orator.

Up until about 3 months ago I was undecided on who I would support. I watched the debates, listened to stump speeches and researched both Clinton and Obama's stand on issues.

Over the last several weeks I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to be a part of an Obama "movement". I want to be a part of my government -- and that's what I know I'll get from Clinton.

Someone earlier on this post put it best about Obama - "New! new! youth! change! hope! change! shiny! shiny! new!". And let me add a couple more SHINY! SHINY!'s of my own.

Over the past few weeks I've observed parts of Obama that are disturbing to me. One is when he turned his back on Clinton as she shook hands with Ted Kennedy on the Seante floor. What I saw in Obama was a petulante, arrogant, prideful child. And I thought, "Do I really want this man as my Presdient?" Barck just does not have the chops, yet, to be President of the United States of America. Try taking on the task of being a statesman first.

And as far as Obama's supporters bringing our country together? I've attended my share of caucuses and I have NEVER before seen a group of supporters be so condesending, unwilling to listen to other caucus members and be just plain rude. If this is what the Obama "movement" is all about - I want no part of it. Barack can talk a pretty speech, but when it comes to depth -I wonder.

Oh ... and I was one of those angry ol' women that sent three donations in to Hillary over the past week. First time I've ever contributed to ANYONE's campaign. Why? Becasue like others have said - I didn't know the campaign was in need and I just felt like I REALLY wanted to help give her the best possible chance possible to become my President.

Posted by Tamara | February 10, 2008 3:53 AM

Well since Washington is a caucus state and only 10% of the eligible voters go to them today Obama got 7% of the voters to support him. whoo hooo.. oh wait.. not so good..

As to "spinning" the tremendous donations to the Hillary campaign it was posted every day as it grew and they are required to do public reporting so I know it wasn't spin. Sadly in the end we might end up with Obama who is nothing more then a National Spokes model for the anti-war group (I oppose it as well and marched against us ever going over there).

The last time people voted for the "great uniter" and someone men wanted to have a beer with we got Bush. We believe in Obama but we know Clinton. He is just a party boy like bush. drugs in college, exclusive ivy league education (why did he change schools btw?) Oh and by the way. Did you know he got admitted under the affirmative action plan at all of his schools?

Posted by Seattle Loves the far left | February 10, 2008 3:57 AM

$$$ I'll put money on McCain if Hillary is the nominee because McCain will get the Independents who would normally go to Obama. Then there is a large block who objects to the Clinton race baiting and remembers the toxic political divisiveness of the Clinton years. McCain and Hillary are very similar and both are Washington establishment so I don't think Hillary voters can make a difference. I'm sure Obama supporters like national healthcare as much as the next guy, perhaps they would prefer choice rather than government mandates. McCain would beat Hillary hands down.

Posted by Ethel | February 10, 2008 4:08 AM

Thank you to all the Hillary supporters keep going. All of you have demonstrated and confirmed my deep convictions for supporting her candidacy.

Darin, Josephine, Rozanna. Someone mentioned why donate to Hillary if she has her own money. I will explain why I think it is important. I was very proud that Hillary spent her own money, she put her money where her mouth is which means she believes strongly in what she can deliver for this country. She has so many strong advisors and peopel who work for her. They are truly awesome and so positive. Her paid staff are so great and I never hear anything negative coming from them unlike these bloggers for Obama.You are not just voting for the next President of the US but an ADMINISTRATION. Hillary has so many hard working dedicated staff who want to see this country move forward and be united. If Hillary self financed her campaign she would of run out eventually and she wouldn't have the people invested. People who make fun of politics and fundraising don't know much about how it works. It is about people who believe in you what you can do and what you are capable of doing. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH! KEEP GIVING! KEEP CHALLENGING AND KEEP SCRATCHING THE SURFACE! I am a very educated young person for Hillary and proud of her diverse support from 18 year olds to African Americans to first generation Africans to Latino's, Asian's to caucasians to Native Americans, to working families, to unions, to businesses, single moms, elderly people, disable people wait and then there are people dedicated to universal health care and educators and veterans, INDEPENDENTS, and most of all people who really care about this country and are really thinking about the issues. THANKS oh and Thanks to people like Ethel who keep trying to bring us down!! You inspired me even more for Hillary! Thank you!

I am smart enough to know when they talk about Republicans and Democrats they are talking about the people in Washington that can or can't get things done. No matter what your political affiliation you can vote for anyone based off issues. I do it all the time!!!! SCRATCH THE SURFACE. READ PAST THE RHETORIC

Posted by Independentminded | February 10, 2008 4:12 AM

Hm. It's really alarming, the pages the Obama people have taken out of the Republican playbook, right down to the chick right here on Atlantic who called we Hillary supporters "angry old feminists." Does she not remember Ann Coulter's crack about "hirsute pie wagons" not so long ago? Isn't she aware that anger is what Republicans routinely use to mock Democrats rightfully outraged over their horrible stewardship of our country's stature and resources?

I really wonder how many people will join the handful of commentators saying Hillary supporters will vote third party if Obama gets the nomination. I've been appalled at what he's allowed his supporters to do to the Democratic Party with his "win at all costs" mentality and willingness to manipulate facts based on his own biases. Also, what SRK said:

Obama does not have broad appeal to voters. Either he can win the anti-democratic caucuses where only a few hardcore activists show up or win primaries in which the AA vote is high. He is yet to win a big state with a broad cross-section of voters outside of his home state. He lost New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, California, Michigan and Florida.

He also lost my home state of Tennessee, which has voted for the winner in every Presidential election since 1960. I think that tells me really all I need to know.

On topic, however, I had given Hillary $1000 early on and this week I gave her another $1000. I'd have had my husband give her even more were we not also donating money to tornado-relief organizations lately. As it is I'm going to have to go without a few things to afford this largesse, but this election is too important to hand some upstart whippersnapper and his holier-than-thou cadre of supporters the keys to the kingdom of the most powerful country on earth.

It takes more to govern effectively than snark and divisiveness, and I haven't seen much more than that out of the Obama people. Where they apparently see inspiration, I see a whole lot of cut lines lifted directly from Martin Luther King and - here's the irony - Bill Clinton himself. Obama has no solid ideas on how to achieve anything, and I think there's no way on earth he'd be an effective leader. I'm not sure I'll vote third party, but I'm going to have to have a whole bag of clothespins to put on my nose if I'm forced to pull the lever for Obama.

Posted by Eleanor A | February 10, 2008 4:14 AM

Ethel

I see the negative comments about Hillary differently. She has been able to withstand all the vicious attacks because of her strong inner core. That's a quality you want in a President.

lb

I didn't hear the Virginia speech. But, it doesn't surprise me. He had the same sense of entitlement at his press conference on Wednesday.

By destroying the credibility of both candidates, we are in the process of losing another Presidential race. I blame the DNC for this mess. There is no way any caucus should occur in either Florida or Michigan. We can't seem to get our act together.

Posted by EWard | February 10, 2008 4:16 AM

ib
I appreciate the civility but I see Hillary's inner core as more of a burning desire for revenge and desperation to control that concerns me. I don't like how her campaign has tried (unsuccessfully) to manipulate the masses with references like Obama "had a sense of entitlement" or is "Washington establishment" which is actually describing herself. It's too transparent and calculating and not believeable. Consider the vicious attacks the Clintons initiated when they not so subtly tried to divide blacks and whites. People are wise to Clinton poitics, they play dirty so Obama supporters have to play defense. Most people do not want to relive the 90's despite the internet boom.

Posted by Ethel | February 10, 2008 4:44 AM

When Obama learns that Canada has a prime minister, and not a president (as he said in one of the debates), then I'll feel more comfortable supporting him.

Hillary has contributed to so many things that impact our country, including:
-As first lady--created and got the support necessary for SCHIP, a universal children's health care program (and people say she failed on health care! Millions of children and their families would disagree)
-Creating the VAWA (Violence Against Women) office to provide resources nationally to victims of domestic violence
-Health care for national reservists
-Speaking out forcefully for human rights in China (while in China), and these are just a start.

While I find Obama likable, I don't see that as a sufficient reason to support him. I would like to see him do something in the senate before we promote him. I have great hopes that he can do a lot for Dems. in the position he currently has.

I am including this article, which speaks to Hillary's ability to work and gain the respect of people across the aisle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/nyregion/30hillary.html?pagewanted=print

Posted by Caitlin | February 10, 2008 5:04 AM

I stopped donating money to Obama not long ago when I decided to look and listen for real information about how the "change" would be delivered and what it would actually consist of.

I switched to Clinton after Feb 5 and started donating to her NOT because I am a woman, or because of some quaint notion of sisterhood. I switched because I am a pragmatist and I want some viable changes delivered, especially in health care.

I simply don't see that happening with Obama's foggy detail and history of fence-sitting and shifting position on difficult issues.

I recommend Obama voters apply your logic consistently. Get on a 747 for one of the most challenging international flights, and make sure the captain is someone who has only ever flown Cessnas on domestic routes, but is a politically right-on choice.

Choose the guy who can talk big about the theory of flying jumbo jets, even though he hasn't done much of it. Naturally he knows everything and can fix everything wrong with the whole aviation system. Tell those pilots who've been doing it all these years that they are sooo yesterday, and there's a new kid in town now. Give him the top job because…he makes passengers feel so damned uplifted and hopeful, and he says he will unite the whole cabin (swoon). That sounds very nice.

Just call it change you can believe in.

Posted by Jennifer | February 10, 2008 6:23 AM

jennifer- mrs. clinton has only a few more years experience in the senate than Mr. Obama. The last democratic president had zero international experience. sure he was a governor (and executive) for many years but no international experience. And while being a governor is good, i don't recall mrs. clinton being governor. so her grand extra experience consists of a few more years in the senate where she voted on the wrong side of the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war (the vote that she still can't justify)

hillary was married to the pilot but that doesnt add to experience in flying the plane

Posted by to jennifer | February 10, 2008 9:06 AM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Per HRC's $$$ -

My understanding is that the January fundraising report has to be made public on Feb. 20 (it switches from quarterly to monthly reporting).

With ten days to go until then, it is obviously advantageous to the HRC campaign, to push back against the narrative that the campaign is running out of money....

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 10, 2008 9:12 AM

Texas Ohio and Penn will get it right - What are the women of the country doing - do you not see this as a chance to make history with a terrific candidate - the black people get it - are we really this stupid????

TO ALL MOTHERS - tonight before your daughter goes to bed - tell her there is no way she will ever be president - but your son can - wonder how that till make her feel. ........Its only because of strong women who rose up before that women even have the opportunity to vote. Think about that before you go to sleep. Do not fall for the handsome orator full of false hope - its falling for people like him that women are where they are today - less wages, less respect - we have to wake up and be strong

Posted by jamie | February 10, 2008 9:19 AM

jamie- all you have to tell your daughter is marry the president and someday you too can be president.. if you werent married to a president than you have no chance

Posted by to jamie | February 10, 2008 9:23 AM

I don't think I'm old (39), but I am white and I did send Hillary $25 this week. I did not send money before because the media kept saying that she had plenty of big donors and lots of money so I figured she did not need any of mine. Once I knew, I was happy to send in some.

I was on the Obama train for a while in the spring (and sent him $35), but I've been turned off by the lack of specifics in his speeches and debates. I also think the GOP will make short work of him. Face it, even Maureen Dowd, who hates the Clintons with the fierce intensity of a thousand burning suns calls him "Obambi." The media hates the Clintons and will "pimp" (to use the word of the day) Obama until he defeats them. Then they will turn to Saint John of the Wonderful Story and insure he trounces Obama in the fall.

Posted by Teresa | February 10, 2008 10:06 AM

I too,must be an old angry feminist,if that is how the Obama supporters which to stereotype those of us who support Hillary.Although I do not consider 25 years old to be "old",and I definately do not consider myself as angry.I am a very,happy upbeat registered voter who has supported Hillary since I watched the 1st democratic debate on CNN,back when there were several democrat's still in the race.Bill Richardson,Chris Dodd,Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were still in the race.I could tell from wathcing the debate that Hillary has the most experience to bring about the changes this nation faces at this crucial time.From boosting the economy,to universal healthcare and bringing our troops home safely from Iraq,Hillary is the candidate I firmly believe in and stand by.I have only heard Obama,repeat Hillary's ideas,I have yet to hear him lay out his own plans for the future.I am one of Hillary's on-line donor's who also donated to her campaign after feb.5th.I had donated to the campaign twice before,but both donation's were small,considering I am a full time college student,and I work full time as well.I gave when I could afford too.I did get my income tax refund back at the beginning of Feb.,so when I saw that Obama had raised more money than Hillary,I made a donation on Feb.6th.I live in a state that hasn't had the chance to vote yet.We don't get to vote till March,but I am not discouraged over Obama's wins last night.He does well in Caucus states.My state holds a primary,and Hillary is favored to win in my home state,as well as Texas and Pennsylvania.There are many more states who haven't got to vote yet.My family lives in Kentucky and they don't vote until may,and they are all Hillary supporter's as well.Most of them are male,so she has more than just female support.I want a president who can deliver on what she says,and every man,woman,and child deserves universal healthcare!!!Hillary will have my support,and donations all the way to the white house.Vote for Hillary in 08!!!!!

Posted by marsha | February 10, 2008 10:47 AM

Well I guess according to some of these posts I'm one of those angry OLD women who support Hillary Clinton. I'm also one of those OLD angry women who donated to the Clinton campaign this past week. I'm also one of those OLD angry women who set an automatic payment every month to the OLD woman who is running for President.

What I resent from Obama supporters is that because I am 60 years old and female that I have no relevance. The disdain that I see on various internet sites for my generation is disgusting. I often want to refer them to a history book and read about what my generation fought for in this country.

Perhaps it is because we had to fight for what we have; because we know what it is like to do without; because we lived through the horrors of the 1960s and the economic downturn of the 1970s and the wholesale destruction of the middle clas by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and then finally a breath of fresh air from the Clinton administration in the 1990s that I support Hillary Clinton.

And don't for a minute think that all the "affluent" people in this country support Barak Obama. My husband and I are up there getting all of George's tax breaks for the wealthy and they have benefited our portfolio and lifestyle; nonetheless I am willing to pay more taxes for HRC's health and education proposals.

I see an arrogance in Barak Obama that permeates throughout his campaign, his speeches and comments from his supporters. It is akin to "I deserve this" "I am better than you" "I am smarter, younger, hipper,than you."

As to Marc's column Hillary asked and her supporters gave. I guess that is okay for Obama supporters but for Hillary supporters, like everything else, it can't just be. There has to be evil associated with it.

Posted by Sue | February 10, 2008 11:00 AM

For every 100,000 donors for Hillary, Obama get 50,000. I would bet that Obama had double the donor money than what Hillary (Clintons) have. I just gave another $50 to Obama last night. I believe that Obama will be out next president of the United States. Listen to the crowd: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Posted by rssrai | February 10, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm one of those online supporters so stick it in your ear Obama people. Ha!

Posted by UWBizKid | February 10, 2008 11:57 AM

I'm glad that many have woke up and returned to reality. Who doesn't know how to turn the page? But there is a difference if the book you are turning is full of solutions, substance and a record or two on previous mistakes. Turning blank pages just don't count. The success of Toyota Motors does not come by bold stroke but incremental steps of improvement and refinement. Patience and consistency is the key. By now you should realize who has these attributes. God blesses America.

Posted by Substance | February 10, 2008 11:59 AM

I will say again to edify the braggarts on Obama's wins last night. "Crock-us-ziz's" are pep rallies. They disenfranchise the majority of voters and use intimidation as a source of accomplishment. I have voted for 30 years and did not go to the "Crock-us" in my state because of the absolute uselessness of that structure. For Obama to again, misrepresent accomplishment as a comparison to Senator Clinton's wins and whining about the structure of super-delegates at the same time he is the "Almighty One" is nothing short of self-delusion. I will give you an example. During the campaign of SC Hillary utilized her time and resources for close to four days in a productive manner and canvassed America prior to ST. The so called "Son of the South" was stuck in SC and so was the bigot Obama. I laughed the entire time at the media and her opponents saying she did not care for the SC folks, meanwhile she was wrapping up the ST states that matter, i.e. CA. Just to enlighten the young voters out there--do you play Texas Hold Em' by chance? I do and I play against arrogant, foul mouthed, young people all the time and when I am heads up with them it is great, because I slowly accumulate my chips while you brag about how you just won a big pot and then I say the words "ALL IN". Oh I forgot to tell you--google your Thesaurus for the term "ALL IN". I'll save you time, it says, "Madame President".

Posted by josephine | February 10, 2008 12:07 PM

The Roman Catholic American voters, the Latino American voters and the working class American voters constitute the largest bloc of voters and they are the base of the electoral power of Senator Hillary Clinton over Senator Barack Obama.

The latest CNN Polls on the better presidential candidate with the experience and expertise to boost the economy and healthcare show Senator Hillary Clinton far ahead of Senator Barack Obama.
The most urgent issues in America today are the economy and healthcare and not the war in Iraq that even a dummy can end anytime.

I want to read rational comments by reasonable readers and not dumb comments by the retard.

God bless Hillary Clinton for President and God bless America!

Posted by Orikinla Osinachi | February 10, 2008 12:10 PM

I see an arrogance in Barak Obama that permeates throughout his campaign, his speeches and comments from his supporters. It is akin to "I deserve this" "I am better than you" "I am smarter, younger, hipper,than you."

Sue, there is only one word from me,

CONCURRED

Posted by Substance | February 10, 2008 12:15 PM

Ethel

Your remarks about revenge and desire are reflective of you. What other public figure could withstand this abuse and still want to serve the public? Despite the four losses, there are many voters that believe she will make a better President. Your entire post is one big hit job against her. If Obama inspires such hope, why are you so hateful?

Posted by EWard | February 10, 2008 12:17 PM

"As to Marc's column Hillary asked and her supporters gave. I guess that is okay for Obama supporters but for Hillary supporters, like everything else, it can't just be. There has to be evil associated with it."

Who is disputing it? That is why Marc's post was so dumb. It assumes that Obama supporters would doubt the veracity of the claim. Why would we do that? Clearly Hillary wouldn't lie about something like that--the press would murder her. The whole thing makes sense, most of us thought Hillary was doing fine with fundraising, when we all found out she wasn't, then her supporters rallied around her. There is nothing no to understand. I don't associate any "evil" with it.

Also, I don't agree with all of the Pro-Obama sentiments on this thread, but you have to admit some of you Hillary supporters are just as bad. I really don't like how many of Hillary's supporters seem to feed off of and gain strength from perceived unfairnesses towards her--some of them are legitimate (the sexist comments for example), but some, such as the structure of the caucuses are determined by the states. Obama has energized supporters so they show up. Why don't Hillary's do the same? I prefer a primary too, but I don't see you guys complaining about how unfair it is that Hillary has instant name recognition, gets to campaign on the good stuff her husband did--but isn't to be held responsible for the bad stuff, and how the modern party structure and establishment was created by Clinton--giving her a huge advantage. Obama has some strengths, and so does Hillary. That's life. Seriously. Quit wallowing in bitterness and self-pity.

Posted by David | February 10, 2008 12:29 PM

What a nonsense to say that you changed from Hillary to Obama after reading that according to "experts" she cannot beat McCain. The Republicans have been after Hillary for years and have dus up all the dirt they could find. Wait until they start digging into Obama's past (the Republican way), drug (cocaine!) use, Rezko, experience, etc. They will cook him alive (remeber the swift boat campaign in 2004) ???? Just keep that in mind!

Posted by MWDcay | February 10, 2008 12:30 PM

We feel strongly on our candidate and push hard for him/her to be nominated. This feel is normal and is encouraged. But being hateful is dangerous. Hate is destructive. Hillary and Obama are the only arms of Democrat and are you going to tear one out before the battle? If anyone still bend on discussing in a hateful manner, I suspect you are not a Dem to start with.

Posted by Substance | February 10, 2008 12:31 PM

To No Blood for Hubris,

I worked for Bobby Kennedy when he was running for senator in NY and Hillary when she ran in NY. I have been involved in NYS democratic politics for more years than I want to remember. I was a supporter of Edwards, but am undecided right now, even though I voted for Hillary in the primary.

You wrote: "women who support HRC solely because of her gender"

This statement seems to be true among many women I know, to a large extent. The women I know best are in their 60's so our personal history is colored by years of working very hard to support women in political office. And we have been successful. But, it is a huge mistake to frame our support for a candidate because we feel affinity for her/him based upon gender, race, religion, etc. REJECTING "the affinity" mindset has been the way we have been able to help elect women to office. So I am distressed by Hillary's tactic in appealing to women. In her NYS campaign she NEVER did that, her appeals were across the board. I think it is a critical mistake. It is divisive and not inclusive.

So, I think that your assertion that:

"Nobody supports Hillary Clinton because of her gender, dude. Or dudette, as the case may be."

Is dead WRONG. And don't refer to women as "dudette" which is sexist in my opinion.

You just prove my point when you state:

"If that were so, we'd be equally happy to vote for Condi Rice, would we not?"

No "we" would not because she is part and parcel of a murderous, criminal gang of thugs who have hijacked our government, because women can be just as f*d up as men. It's the right man or woman who can gather a working majority to begin the long and complex process of transforming the political and cultural landscape that is the key.

NaomiNY

Posted by NaomiNY | February 10, 2008 12:42 PM

Where did all the Edwards supporters go? Wasn't he for universal healthcare like Clinton?

Posted by MWDcay | February 10, 2008 12:49 PM

FOR THOSE OF YOU WONDERING WHY SHE SUDDENLY GOT A SURGE: ANYONE WHO HAD REGISTERED THEIR EMAIL WITH HER SITE GOT A "SEND MONEY URGENTLY" EMAIL THE NIGHT OF SUPERTUESDAY. ALSO, THE NEXT DAY THE $5 MILLION LOAN CAME OUT. APPARENTLY IT WORKED.

Posted by tony | February 10, 2008 12:59 PM

Talking about the numbers - in 2007, a year both Clinton and Obama were involved in their campaigns, Obama chose not to vote on 166 of 442 bills, resolutions, etc. in the Senate. That's 38% of the votes he did not vote "Yay" or "Nay." Obama, in his short Senate career beginning in 2005, has not voted 179 times out of 1,088 possible votes -- 16% of the time.

This is a decision maker? This is a world leader?

Clinton chose not to vote on 101 of 442 times, that's 22%. In Clinton's entire Senate career, beginning 2001, she's not voted 145 times on 2396 possible votes (6%).

See for yourselves. Just the facts, m'am. There's no spinning going on here:

Clinton - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?person=300022

Obama - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=2007&person=400629

What are we paying this guy for?

I contributed to Hillary's campaign this week and I'm going to contribute more. She's our last chance for a universal health care plan. She's where our hope for a positive change truly lies. She understands the issues we face as a nation from our bleeding economy, to our spewing carbon dioxide, to our terrible reputation in the world as a bully, to our status as a nation that ranks 35th in the world in health care as many more of our citizens die each year for lack of medical care than we are losing soldiers in Iraq.

Vote for Clinton so we can get this country back on track. She has been working hard for this country for decades - for health care, for civil rights issues, for women's issues. And don't kid yourself. Even though she wasn't an elected official, she got plenty of experience as First Lady.

She is a world leader!

Posted by Alexr | February 10, 2008 1:02 PM

By the way, I am a 39-year-old black male supporting Hillary Clinton. I have always admired her, even more than her husband. She is so smart and knowledgeable about public policy. She is poised under attack and speaks with specificity rather than broad ambiguous themes. I am disappointed that her support vanished among blacks, but I understand and appreciate racial pride and enthusiasm. I think Clinton is ready to serve now. I think Obama would be a great President in 8 years.

Posted by Tony | February 10, 2008 1:08 PM

I actually switched from Obama to Hillary.

Obama's rhetoric is enticing at first, but once I got beyond the surface, I found that I couldn't vote for him anymore.

I just don't see the passion for the issues in him that I see in Hillary. He has begun saying, if you want to see issues, look at my website. But his people write that stuff. I want to see that he knows the issues and feels strongly about them.

I just never saw that. On many issues, he seems ill-informed.

Also, I don't think he stacks up well against McCain. He is the most liberal US Senator according to National Journal. Hillary is 16th. 32nd in 2006.

His arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, his driver's licenses for illegals, his proposal to increase the payroll tax, etc., None of these will serve him well in the general election.

Also, his wins are coming in the South from the black vote, and red state caucuses from liberal elite votes (working people can't take 2 or 3 hours to go caucus). I don't think those victories are representative of the general election.

In swing states that matter, Missour, New Mexico, etc, while Obama wins the Liberal-elite, Hillary wins the moderates. Those are the votes the Dems will need against a centrist McCain.

I fear that if the Dems put Obama in as their candidiate, he will be a John Kerry Part II.

This are some of the reasons I a voting for Hillary next week.

Posted by Steve Fulsom | February 10, 2008 1:10 PM

"I switched to Clinton after Feb 5 and started donating to her NOT because I am a woman, or because of some quaint notion of sisterhood."

I've had enough of the above statement. I've heard it over and over and over again during this campaign ... "just because she's a woman is not enough" .... and the quote above ... "because of some quaint notion of sisterhood".

If you go look at my earlier post, you will see I have many reasons for wanting Hillary Clinton to be our next president ... one big one is Heathcare! Heathcare! Heathcare!.

"Just becasue she's a woman is not enough" ...

Well you know ... it just might be for some women! Judge it how you will, but I will NOT invalidate one woman's very personal choice of why she wants Hillary Clintion to be Presdient of the United States. I'm willing to bet that if you asked a group of dem. women if they would vote for Elizath Dole over a man ... most or probably all would say no.

Hillary Clinton has been apart of the American fabric for the past 16 years. She's been looked at, picked apart and criticized from all angles. She's been attacked by the right - the left and everyone inbetween. We watched as she was cheated on by her husband ... in full view of the entire world. Hillary Clinton has handled ALL the scrutiny over the years with strength and fortitude. There is more to be learned about a candidate/person than by just looking at their voting record.

"...because of some quaint notion of sisterhood."

Quaint? Quaint! Are you serious?

Best you take time to ponder the women who put themselves in harms way just so YOU could step into a ballot box and vote for whomever you like.

Best you look up the women who went to jail and starved themselves just so YOU, today in the 2008 election, have the right to vote.

Best you take into account the women who were tortured and in some cases died just so YOU could be apart of the truest form of democracy - before you devalue what these women of the 1800's did to ensure your freedom and right to vote.

I doubt anyone would call what the men and women of WWII did to ensure our country's freedom "quaint". So ... best you take another look before calling the women who provided YOU with "freedom" quaint.

If a woman comes up to me and says ... "You know, I'm a woman and I'm really VERY tired of seeing men run our country. In my lifetime, I just want to be a part of giving a woman a chance to be President of the United States." ... I'll smile and say .... "Right on ... Sister!" ... :-)

Posted by Tamara | February 10, 2008 1:17 PM

>CNN just called LA for Obama!
>With 32% reporting, it's 53% to 39%.
>Obama is 3:0 tonight...
>Obama 08

But Louisiana will go Red in the general election so what happens in the primary won't matter.

Having lived there for 30+ years I've seen the trend. It's been moving that way for probably the last 15 years, except for Orleans parish (NOLA)

Posted by Fredster | February 10, 2008 1:23 PM

>CNN just called LA for Obama!
>With 32% reporting, it's 53% to 39%.
>Obama is 3:0 tonight...
>Obama 08

But Louisiana will go Red in the general election so what happens in the primary won't matter.

Having lived there for 30+ years I've seen the trend. It's been moving that way for probably the last 15 years, except for Orleans parish (NOLA)

Posted by Fredster | February 10, 2008 1:25 PM

SRK - What are you smokin'?

Obama has such a broad coalition of support -- a fellow whom hardly anyone knew until four short years ago. Now he's taken the lead with pledged delegates, and states won, and you want to say he doesn't have a broad base of support.

Fredster -- you're smokin' that stuff, too!

Louisiana went Dem in 1992 AND 1996, and 1976. Looks like LA goes Blue every time the Dems put up a decent candidate -- like a Barack Obama or the Bill Clinton of 1992. Now WJC is damaged goods, as is his wife with her Bush-Lite voting record.

As for Clinton having a donor base, haven't they had one since 1988, and 1992? This is some kind of a surprise, Marc Ambinder? Surely you jest.

What is the surprise to Clinton supporters is how much animousity there is toward Billary, apparently. They DO NOT understand that we DO NOT want another Clinton or even McCain in the White House. We want change and it's either going to be Obama or Huckabee.

Mark my words, Obama or Huckabee (who has now begun a major move up). Preferably Obama and it does look like he could win this thing.

Posted by Andrew L. - Des Moines, IA | February 10, 2008 1:47 PM

I'm a lesbian and I'm for Hillary as are all my friends. Having the first lesbian or bi woman president is HUGE for us and we're looking forward to riding our cycles to DC next November. Go Hillary. We love you!

Posted by Margo | February 10, 2008 1:51 PM

I am always happy to give examples of real, life changing actions that Hillary has taken on behalf of children, Arkansans, and Americans (see just a couple amazing, highly impactful examples I gave above). I send long, specific emails to my friends when they ask why I support Hillary. When I ask them to do the same for their candidate, they DO NOT (and they are supposed to be "smart", having themselves mostly gone to Harvard law--isn't that one of the things people keep repeating about Obama as a reason to support him).

Hmm. Could it be that they do not respond with specifics because Obama does not have the same type of resume? All they keep coming back to is Obama being "transformative" or "inspiring". Yes, it is great that Obama has Ted Sorenson (JFK's famous and gifted speechwriter) writing speeches for him. But these uplifting speeches, lacking specificity, do not in fact transform Obama into JFK, RFK, MLK, or Abe Lincoln. The press has bought into this "associative suggestion" tactic that is employed EVERY single stump speech that I've ever seen Obama give (and I have seen many, even one in person).

To those who question Hillary's experience--her legislative and substantive work did not begin as a senator. She got concrete change while first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. Just because she was not in office doesn't mean that she was inactive. That smacks of an unfair telling of facts, and of sexism (a woman's roll is insignificant). I would argue that Hillary is uniquely qualified to be president, in a way no one else is. She was there doing substantive work in the West Wing for eight years. She traveled abroad almost monthly on official state business--on behalf of Americans and our interests.

And so, I ask again, for the umpteenth time: what are Obama's qualifications?

Please also read:
OBAMA'S MISUSE OF HISTORY:
(Despite the candidate's claims, Lincoln and Kennedy were seasoned politicians before they became president.)
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilentz26jan26,0,5561702.story

Posted by Caitlin | February 10, 2008 2:00 PM

Caitlin: Does your Mother know you're a carpet muncher?

Posted by Jay | February 10, 2008 2:03 PM

Jay,

It surprises me that I keep hearing that the elite and educated are voting for Barack Obama and the uneducated (high school diploma or less) are voting for Hillary. I am surprised, mainly because the Obama supports are the first to resort to insulting, ignorant tactics such as yourself. Once again, the so-called movement of "hope, integrity, character and right on day one" resorts to negativity, slander, and ignorance "on day one." Childish.

Posted by Dont defend my candidate by insulting the other | February 10, 2008 2:17 PM

Jay,

My mother loves me regardless of who I am attracted to. Does yours?

Posted by Caitlin | February 10, 2008 2:19 PM

Jay,

Mom just wants me to be a good person, which has nothing to do with whether I am straight or gay.

Why not respond to my opinion in a constructive way? I am happy to hear alternate positions. It is fun and forces me to continue to question my own beliefs.

By the way, my best friend is a lesbian, and I think she is the best person I know (she also happens to have gone to Harvard Law, is African American, and she supports Hillary). My boyfriend is Jewish, has degrees from Berkeley and Columbia, and a doctorate from Oxford, and he supports Hillary. I guess we don't fit into the demographics of who supposedly supports Hillary, now do we?

One thing that unites us is that we all want someone who has shown that they understand policy and can get things done. Apparently others are content to be "inspired". Good luck on that.

Posted by Caitlin | February 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Jay, Another hate mongering response from the Obama supporters. Not to mention rude. It is amazing to note the absolutely clueless of Obama supporters on these blogs--I read "He's a cool black dude" -- Fact--He is not the First Black to run. He is the first "mulatto" to run. Another Obama misrepresentation on the books of history.

Posted by Greg | February 10, 2008 2:29 PM

"Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists."

Don't all of ya get your diapers in a bunch, now, mama's li'l darlins! Just as Obama can see a surge of money, so, too, can our gal, Hill! Nothin' wrong with a li'l ol' healthy competition! And you can be certain that us "angry ol' white feminists" will be FIGHTIN' LIKE HILL' FOR CLINTON!

Posted by "one angry ol' white feminist!" | February 10, 2008 2:34 PM

"Oh, please. These new donors aren't committed Hillary supporters. These are old angry white women, and pansy pie faced white boys like Marc, who are pissed that the cool black guy is beating their "girl" at her own game. Angry old white feminists."

Don't all of ya get your diapers in a bunch, now, mama's li'l darlins! Just as Obama can see a surge of money, so, too, can our gal, Hill! Nothin' wrong with a li'l ol' healthy competition! And you can be certain that us "angry ol' white feminists" will be FIGHTIN' LIKE HILL' FOR CLINTON!

Posted by "one angry ol' white feminist!" | February 10, 2008 2:34 PM

Sen. Obama I believe is a great speaker. He may become a good President but not now and not in the near future. He talks about change all the time but he gives us false sense of hope. I don’t want to have a president who just talks about change and not actually do it. Hillary is strong and would be able to handle difficult situations. She is convicted to changing and improving our nation for the better.

Posted by Marilou | February 10, 2008 2:40 PM

I am a big believer in Hillary Clinton. I'm not against Obama, however I agree with Hillary Clinton in the details and truly believe she would make the better leader.

She's dedicated herself to public life in a way few have.

I was one of those small contributers to her campaign after Super Tuesday. I did so because I believe in her and support her, and I did so twice, though it was a small amount.

I am not an angry "older white woman".

I agree that Obama is inspiring, but my question is inspiring to do what? If he was the only potential nominee, I would be fully behind him. However, Hillary has the track record and the heart and she is the best choice for the nomination.

Posted by Seth | February 10, 2008 2:48 PM

Unfortunately the "movement" has brainwashed everyone and with the media behind him I don't see how Hillary will be able to win. Everything the Clinton campaign says and does gets spinned in a negative direction but Obama can't do no wrong. He's an arrogant (have you seen him after the debates, shakes hands but no smile just an arrogant look on his face) populist. Everytime I hear him speak it is about change and blah blah blah. No substance.

Posted by MWDcay | February 10, 2008 2:57 PM

I am a NEW Clinton supporter. I was on the fence between Barack and Hillary. The reason for my choice is simple. I think she is best qualified for the position. Also I don't think Hillary has gotten a fair shake by certain media and is held to a different standand whereas Barack has been the media's darling and isn't subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Have you heard Barack's supporters talk about Hillary on these blogs? So much for their message of "hope and change." I also joined her team and donated $100 this week to her campaign when I heard she gave herself a personal loan of $5 million. I will continue to donate to her campaign until the end. I also got my sister and brother to donate to her campaign, so it is entirely possible for Hillary to develop a new donor base.

Posted by lawrenceAZ | February 10, 2008 3:04 PM

The calculated cry...followed by the calculated..."I (lent) my campaign $5 million"...

It's pretty obvious who Clinton will cater to first...the rich.

She will only cater to the average American in "talk" or when she is in trouble...

You Clinton supporters are being duped....she basically admitted to not thinking your support was critical.

Can't say the same about Obama...who has built his ground organization from the beginning.

Hillary is a fraud

Posted by Optimist | February 10, 2008 3:13 PM

Just for your information. I never gave any money to any canidate and I am 58 years old. Me and my son decided to give Hillary $100.00 towards her campain. Make what you want of it or try to read my mind. I support her and she needed the money. Maybe I was shocked that she was out of money.

Posted by Tom K & Son | February 10, 2008 4:27 PM

This planet has a vested interest in who becomes the new leader of the Free World - and after the previous years of the dangerous and arrogant Bush flim-flam era, why on earth would we want another one? Black, white, green or pink - makes no difference - they have to be able to actively lift America to a new height in the world view - and arrogant flim-flam won't do it! HRC has all the qualities and more ........ and yes, I also donated this week - as any clear thinking person of any means at all would do! Like many I've been following events very closely and have researched past performance of both remaining Democratic hopefuls! Having also listened very carefully, I know for sure that Hillary has the grace and intelligence to be trusted with the international scene as well as with current domestic problems ....... but I cannot say that for Obama, I'm afraid!

Posted by Outsider | February 10, 2008 5:52 PM

Obama blasted Hillary for her former work on Wal-Mart's board (where board members say she fought for greater diversity). I am not pleased she was on that board either. She made $15,000 per year doing it.

Yet it becomes a character issue for me because while Obama blasts Hillary, Obama's wife is CURRENTLY on the board of a Wal-Mart subsidiary (a pickle company). For going to a few meetings a year she makes $50,000. Obama publicly defends it by saying he and his family "live in the real world" and have bills and college to pay for. But they made about $990,000 last year. People who live in glass houses...

Also, why did Obama purchase a house on the same day and adjoining a convicted felon, who is in jail for seeking favors from politicians? Maybe what Obama did is not illegal, but it definitely does not pass the smell test (and that is because Obama claims that he barely knows Rezko). Yet Obama wrote letters on Rezko's behalf for lucrative public works projects in his district almost 10 years ago (while Rezko was a slum lord). Hmmm.

A change we can believe in? I don't think so.

(By the way--my sources are NYT for Hillary and Chicago Tribune for the Obama story. You can easily google articles on both)

Posted by Concerned Citizen | February 10, 2008 6:08 PM

A visitor came from this blog to my blog at 1:43 and left this:

""Why don't you iron my shirt, bitch?

How you like that misogyny, hoe?

My guess is that you have nose and tongue piercings, a flat top burr
haircut, and a well worn flannel shirt."

Posted by Joko"

What a charmer.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 10, 2008 6:15 PM

Margo reminds me of Jay -- and Jay reminds me of Joko.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | February 10, 2008 6:20 PM

i am having a most difficult time believing that senator clinton has raised 10million dollars. why? it is all too clintonesque -- that is timing, when the information is released. senator clinton from her account with the former president gave the campaign 5million dollars -- and then bam she figures out how to use the internet? it just doesn't make sense, to me, and i think to other folks.
also, why is she unwilling to disclose her tax information? senator and mrs. obama released their information, so, why does she say, "i'll show my financial if i am the nominee. . ."

Posted by mcallas | February 10, 2008 6:22 PM

Mcallas--What is so hard to figure out? Many of us figured that Hillary was doing great financially. She raised over $100 million in '07. She OUTRAISED Obama. In January Obama did amazingly well. Clinton supporters were complacent, so we needed to be waken up.

Posted by Caitlin | February 10, 2008 6:40 PM

As a new Hillary donor, I found that the only way I could cut through the media bias was to keep giving her money. Everybody respects money. It's not about being "angry." I think she's the most qualified to bring us universal health care. I do not believe Obama will get that done.

Frankly, before this I didn't realize she needed the money. Many of the people I know are becoming more emotionally invested in her campaign as they continue to donate. Believe it or not, the people I know are having fun donating. It's empowering them at a time when they watch her being degraded, even as they see she has the best command of the issues.

That's just my opinion as a Hillary donor. Maybe it's different for other people. But it's not about being angry. It's about having fun and feeling good about supporting her.

Posted by xam | February 10, 2008 7:15 PM

I'm one of those "old ladies" who didn't contribute to Clinton until this week. I sent some money early on to Dodd, because I wanted to help keep the issues surrounding FISA in the debate. Other than that, I held off because I found several of the candidates attractive and I didn't know who I would end up supporting. Instead of contributing to the candidates, I contributed to the party and to our efforts in the Senate and Congress.

It's only in the last few weeks, as I've gotten to know Obama and his campaign, and Hillary, better, that I moved solidly into the Clinton camp. I don't believe, at this moment in time, Obama is the right person for the presidency. The next four years are going to be brutal, and they are going to take a terrible toll on the person who takes on that office. The times require someone who can endure being terribly unpopular -- not someone who hopes to depend on his ability to inspire and be loved. We don't need the glamour of JFK, we need the midwestern stubborness of Harry Truman. I don't worry about how much the media hates Hillary, because I know they are going to hate any Democrat who takes office and does the hard things required to get this country out of the ditch.

Also, I disapprove of Obama's campaign strategy -- which I believe, if it wins him the nomination, will weaken the party in the long run. I think the campaign's tactics, under the influence of Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, whose 527 produced and aired that grimy attack ad, featuring a photo of Osama bin Laden, on Howard Dean in 2003, are too often divisive. I am not impressed with some of his supporters in the party establishment -- men who have too consistently proved themselves to be too cowardly to stand up for the less-than-powerful contituencies that depend on the Democratic party for a voice in our political debate.

For all those reasons, I decided it was time to put my money on Hillary. I am not "poor." I am not tapped out. I'm a successful business owner. And, I have encouraged others to contribute to Hillary, too.

I'm not supporting Hillary because I am old and "angry." I'm supporting her for many reasons, but first of which is this; she has the best understanding of the real needs, in terms of education, opportunities, vital public resources, etc. of the ambitious young people, of all ethnicities, most from struggling lower middle class, poor and immigrant families, who work with me in my business.

These young people are the future of this country just as much as Obama's more affluent young supporters. And they, and the country, deserve a president who both sees who they are and understands what their success or failure means to the country's future.

Posted by mary | February 10, 2008 7:57 PM

Benjamin, my figures on voting (Clinton 81% and Obama 56%) are relative to total tenure. So, its valid. But, I could go back and do a sample of Clinton's first N months and compare with Obama's first N months. That would be interesting!

Posted by Leigh | February 10, 2008 8:03 PM

"I am not impressed with some of his supporters in the party establishment -- men who have too consistently proved themselves to be too cowardly to stand up for the less-than-powerful contituencies that depend on the Democratic party for a voice in our political debate."

Mary, you might want to do a little research into Mark "upper-middle class soccer mom targetting, union-busting" Penn. You know, Hillary's Campaign manager...

Posted by David | February 10, 2008 9:00 PM

Ah! Now that I checked into the Obama/Clinton voting records in more detail, I think I really don't like Barack Obama! I can't believe the trend I see. It appears that his "no votes" happen to coincide with controversial issues, like border control and the war. That is....instead of standing up for what he believes, he simply doesn't show up. I actually think (now that I look at the statistics) that's what Bill Clinton was trying (unsuccessfully) to say earlier in the primaries. This is quite an eye-opener. Obama actually dodges difficult votes. Well, it's one way to stay popular....if no one discovers the tactic.

Posted by Leigh | February 10, 2008 9:10 PM

I am really sorry I ever posted here. The majority of posters are playing silly games, regardless who is pretending to support whom.

What is wrong with most of you?

NaomiNY

Posted by NaomiNY | February 10, 2008 9:40 PM

I surf allot of blogs and I am truly amazed at some of the comments that appear to have done no research and are not founded in having lived long enough. So, here is my opinion based on human nature:
1. Obama's campaign masterfully worked the emotions of blacks in regards to slavery, civil rights, etc. prior to SC. Demonstrated by speech inflections and stoking the fires with MLK. What a pitiful ethnic group they are-the Clintons have done more for that race then Obama could ever have imagined and to have demeaned them in front of the whole world through his surrogates and campaign and the media demonstrates probably one of the most sickening times in history I have ever witnessed. But, it does not surprise me. Blacks by nature when confronted with saying something to your face as a white and then going back to their black communities will pick their black group every time. They do not have the sense to go beyond racial lines because they are to incompetent as local politicians of color to clean up their own back yards--not to mention their males that are so irresponsible-- unless of course you get a job as POTUS because of the affirmative action mentality. Nobody gets the percentage of a voting block like Obama has from blacks unless it is racially charged. Think about it--and they are just not smart enough to know how they were politically played by the white men behind the scenes. Hell, black women do not even realize that black men had the right to vote before they did--yet they support the color of a skin with pride. The biggest farce is that he is not even black--he is mulatto. This guy has the gift of activism--not president.

2.Now let's move on to the predatory effect of inciting emotionalism into our youth and calling it change. The turnout of voters in my memory is always increased when we are in a state of war. Not to mention the information age that allows for information to be known. If young people are so hell bent on the Prophet of Change being their moderator perhaps they should ask themselves to show them how he changed the State of Illinois while he was a Senator. Gather up about 5,000 people age 18-29 in Illinois and see exactly what he changed in their lives. i bet absolutely nothing would be the majority. Again, inciting support on a national level does not transcend to a President. Do you young people think that if you want to picket outside the gates of the White House in this day and age that they would not put you-way back because of the risk of terrorism. Get a grip--start understanding that the real change begins in who you vote for to go to Congress, etc. --not at the Presidential level.

3. He was in Indonesia from the age of 6-10 so that makes him a global diplomat---ohhh paleeezzze! I was raised Catholic so I need to be the US Ambassador to Italy and have communion with the Pope.

4. The church he belongs to is the scariest of it all--what was he prior to 20 years ago. Because God knows he has been there for 20 years and is a Christian. Count the years--he is 46yo minus 20 years--woah 26 years to form a belief system of what?

5. Let's see he has duped blacks--duped people to believe that the middle name Hussein has no roots--duped the media to treat him with kid gloves or else the race card gets called---duped people to believe he is the first AA--instead of the first mulatto--duped people he is for change and one America at the expense of his competition being minimized--Geesh--this guy did not even have the class to congratulate publicly Hillary for her win in Nevada.

6. Lastly, when you are so excited about his wins-- Caucasus do not represent the entire population of voters that would have shown up. For example Maine has 1.7 mil voters and 53,000 showed --Do the math people--there is no way that this Jr. Senator is going to win against a former First Lady x2 and sitting Senator.

So, I extend my condolence early to all the dreamy eyed individuals that do not have a clue what a strategic campaign involves and how the Democratic Party functions.

Posted by Jack | February 10, 2008 9:44 PM

David --

Unfortunately, it would be impossible to find a large national or international Public Relations or Advertising firm that does not have on its client list corporations and businesses that have actively worked to prevent and put an end to union organizing in their workplaces. Just as impossible as finding anyone among the many Wall Street contributors to Obama's campaign who hasn't made a whole lot of money off such corporations and the success corporate America has had in limiting the power of labor over the last 30 years.

If Penn is a "union buster" then we are all union busters now -- either because we consume products from anti-labor companies, sell services and goods to them, invest in them directly or indirectly, attend a school that's endowment is enriched by them, etc.

I'm sure some of the money that financed that ad -- we don't know everyone who contributed to the attack on Dean but we do know former Senator Robert Torricelli, and many others, did -- had its roots in "union-busting" fortunes, too.

But I don't hold Gibbs' connection to union busting against him -- what I hold against him is that, in service to Kerry, he used the most despicable Republican tactics and talking points against a fellow Democrat. A tactic that doesn't just injure it's target, but, far worse, undermines the entire Democratic party in the eyes of voters, and weakens it future.

I wasn't even a Dean supporter in 2004, but I was outraged by that ad and the stupidity of the people who created it.

Gibbs hasn't done anything as slimey as that ad in this campaign, yet. But, he is continuing the strategy of using ugly Republican talking points and characterizations to attack an opponent -- in the process, just as he did with that ad, wounding the entire party by undermining its image and besmirching its brand.

That's trading the long term interests of progressives and the people they represent for the short term self-interest of one candidate. And it is, in my view, indefensible.

Posted by mary | February 10, 2008 10:08 PM

Mary. I don't really know what to say. You are collapsing definintions to imply that you or I are as much a union-buster as Penn.

Try reading this and see if you think that is still accurate. Also, it isn't just union-busting. Your initial claim was that Obama was too close to those who don't listen to the unheard voices in the party. Um, insofar as Clinton shafted the left (which he did in some instances), Mark Penn deserves at least some portion of the credit:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=penn_inc

Posted by david | February 10, 2008 10:25 PM

Also, see Mark Penn in action here. How he relishes the word "cocaine." What a sleeze-bucket.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=battle_of_the_consultants#103192

I don't know anything about Gibbs. If you post some links I'll check them out.

Posted by David | February 10, 2008 10:32 PM

WAKE UP OUT THERE. If Hillary were a man, this would be a landslide in Hillary's favor. All we hear from OBAMA is RHETORIC .... DON'T BE FOOLED. He is name dropping, John F. Kennedy, MLK. You have to earn the accomplishments not just liken yourself to those whom the public holds in high regard. Unfortuantely, the American public is not very intelligent. Those out there who say, I just don't like her. I like him better, what type of analysis is that?

If the white men in this country would vote based on the canidate's qualifications, that would undeniably be Hillary. Hillary would win overwhelmingly. You people do not even realize that you have a diffferent standard for women than men. It is subconscious. Nothing to do with anger. If it did, it is justified. The best qualified canidate should get your vote, not just the best qualified if he is aq man. Look at the New York Times article, same speach given by man and woman, people say they like the man's speech better overwhelmingly. Obama will have his time. We need someone with Hillary's intelligence, energy, savvy,

Hillary is intelligent, much better prepared, more experienced and yes, youngsters, experience provides a basis for gauging the future. Hillary's accomplishments outwiegh Obama's one thousand fold.

I am a professional woman myself. I know that women are judged differently, people look at hundreds of criteria, subconscious, if a woman fails on any, people slelect the man. On many fronts, I have competed with and outdone men many, many times... seldom receive the credit. You want change, evaluate canidates objectively by the same criteria.

That equals Hillary in a landslide.

Posted by Pam | February 11, 2008 1:31 AM

Bravo. Yes, the sad truth is that the last few elections show that the American people--in general--don't respond well to intelligence. I really didn't care for Kerry's campaign at all, but he made some excellent points, most of which were intellectual. Americans clearly go for "nice" and I think Hillary falls short there, mostly because she's a woman. Her words would be very much embraced if she were a man. Sorry, I believe, in this case, there is gender bias. I also think that Bill Clinton hurt her campaign back in South Carolina and I'm not sure she can recover from that. But there is time. And Barack Obama will be finished with his honeymoon sometime soon.

Posted by Leigh | February 11, 2008 5:23 AM

Take heart. Obama will not have Hillary's supporters lined up behind him even if he is nominated. He better start to mend fence now... I will bet my last dollar that he will lose the presidency if Hillary's backers are not keen to back him. For a start, stop behaving arrogantly even if he were to win all the rest of the states. His behavior as well as those of his supporters' just turn people off. Sorry, except the Rep.

Posted by Substance | February 11, 2008 10:09 AM

How does Obama pan himself off as an anti-war candidate while comparing himself to JFK?

JFK was an inexperienced walking disaster for the U.S. as far as military decisions were concerned.

He put us in Vietnam, just for starters, and led us down the mistaken path called "The Bay of Pigs."

How many presidencies cleaning up after Camelot, i.e. its beautiful looking king and queen?

The Obama fanatics in college, feeling like they missed out on that magical era, should study their history more carefully. Instead of their football and basketball scores in the local bars.

Posted by NotForObama | February 11, 2008 10:50 PM

Clinton Finds A Donor Base

Comments (176)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives