Hillary Clinton Raises $4 Million in 24 Hours

Barack Obama isn't the only one raising money. I'm adding to Big Tent's post, from Hillary Clinton's website -- they've raised $4 million in 24 hours from 35,000 contributors:

Not only did we celebrate huge victories for Hillary all over the country on Super Tuesday, but you matched our success with a breathtaking show of support. You exceeded our $3 million goal in less than 24 hours. In fact, we've already hit FOUR MILLION DOLLARS! Incredible! And so far, more than 35,000 people -- 35,000! -- have made online contributions.

Your response has been so amazing that we are doubling our goal: $6 million in 72 hours.

This race isn't over.

< Obama And Clinton Raise Big Dollars | Romney Drops Out, What About Huckabee? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    and george please... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cdo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    there is a difference between being FOR one  candidate, and being HOSTILE to another. If you think the boards here are actually hostile towards Obama, then do what I did after years of visiting Dailykos...just leave. It wasn't the pro-Obama rhetoric that drove me away from kos. It was the republican-minded anti-Clintonism. Had enough of that already, thanks. There are no anti-Obama screeds here, day after day after day. So please stop trying to pretend that there are.

    go through every topic post by (none / 0) (#26)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    BTD or Jeralyn in the past two weeks.  Add up all of the Pro Clinton Posts.  Find and add up the Pro Obama one's.  Tally up the totals and see what you get.  There is a definite "skew"...not saying that there is vile stuff being said...but it is slanted in one particular opinion.  Not both...but one...that's all I am saying....and the reason I still keep coming is because of the "spirited" conversation that I have been able to have to this point.  Hopefully objectivity and (I hate to say it) balance will return after this mess of a primary is over.

    That's quantitative, not qualitative (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    content analysis.  And that wasn't the initial critique.  Any candidate who can't stand up to not only a number of criticisms but the content of them, if fair, is not going to be ready for the onslaught of unfair attacks by the GOP.

    it;s not the criticism, it is the content of (none / 0) (#41)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    unfair criticism.  I did not see a single post on the NY times piece on the contributions that that guy made to the Clinton foundation.  The hollow argument about Obama not being able to stand up to the Republican is just that hollow. How about the fact that "your" candidate so mismanaged her money that she had to borrow 5M from herself...you can hear it now...if she can manage a campaign primary how can she take on the terrorists...or the Republicans. Something along those lines...or will she just cry at that point...

    All discussed here already (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    -- the donor contacts by both candidates, the donation to her campaign by one candidate . . . which has worked brilliantly in her first reach-out to the netroots . . . etc.  Read past threads before saying something hasn't been done here.

    As for your last sentence, also covered here was your GOP/media meme about "crying," which neither Dem candidate did.  Or did you mean the GOP candidate who cried three times in a week, just before it got massive coverage when a Dem candidate DIDN'T do so?  Or did you miss that about the GOP candidate on your GOP blogs?


    Nor have you seen Rezko posts (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:06 PM EST
    Do you have an idea why?

    can not and should not keep up its more excess (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    Hey her supporters cant keep up with Oprah Exelon bundlers that's no surprise I guess. I send my monies sure but that Obama has obscene amounts is just more narcissistic excess it dose not bother me she will have enough to get the job done.

    Hillarys URGENT problem as I see it is the Progressives as a political sect, the Rush Limbaugh's types on the Left believing they speak for the Dem Party showing up and spouting off as if they were Party insiders with their anti Hillary rants.......the Democratic Party certainly Hillary needs to counter this hate this misrepresentation being spewed by Air America Ed Schultz types, the Progressive Blogs like Huff Post, Kos and TPM as the notion they speak for Democrats they need to disavow them now. And the Party Leaders need to demand and yell at the top of their LUNGS  that these people the Rachel Maddow's,  Arianna's, Kos, and Josh no more speak for Dems then dose the Rush and Ann Coulter speak for real Republican.  This is a the true immediate risk, if the Party and their nominee are associated with this fringe extreme cult behavior instead of being perceived as a Party that can put forth substantial candidate that can govern is an inclusive capable ethical manner.

    Who DOES Speak... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    ...for the Democratic party? Why shouldn't those blogs and leaders and sites support the candidate of their choice and put him OR her forward as the true face of the Democratic Party? Both Clinton and Obama supporters have very valid critiques of the other side and what danger they may represent to Progressivism and/or the party. Let's NEVER silence either side!

    My big problem (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    is the way bloggers complain about "full disclosure" in media and then don't do the same disclosure themselves.  That disclosure should especially come when they appear on TV or in printed media to provide "balanced analysis".

    The other is the way some (DailyKOS) let their sites collapse into gang warfare.  Such a collapse certainly doesn't advance "progressive politics".  Instead, it promotes division of factions of Democrats.


    of course they can lean anyway they please (none / 0) (#65)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:47:46 PM EST
    but they do not speak for the democratic party. if they did, there would be a more balanced rendering in the blogs. but there isn't. they(many of the blogs) have accepted and even supported extreme bias in their blogs. the hatefest at daily kos is a big disappointment but i've moved on.

    Feel the momentum. She might have raised 4M in (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    24 hrs...Obama has raised almost 8M dollars in less than 48 hrs....it sure isn't over...I'll see your 4M and raise you...


    Hillary's pity donations are great...but why would you give money to a candidates campaign that just had to give herself 5M.  Why didn't she give herself more?  Does she not believe in what she is doing?  Hmmmm.....

    Hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    that Obama supporters haven't been more successful in converting HRC backers on line.  They're such a gracious bunch.

    urls must be in html format or they skew the site (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    and will be deleted. Please read the comment rules.

    how do u do that? (none / 0) (#9)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    Here's How (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    I apologize for not following (none / 0) (#8)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    the rules...that will not erase the almost 8M that has been donated.  It's kind of funny that a site that used to be objective has become so ardently partisan.  For all the work that was done on the Libby thing I can honestly say that I am disappointed that the MAJORITY of posts are pro Clinton and Negative to Obama.  Of course not all sites are like this, but Talk Left and My DD must have some other agenda.  I wonder what it is other than spirited discourse.  Jeralyn?

    Two Things (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    First, most of the other blogs are ardently pro-Obama. (Remember Markos' infamous California does not matter post?) It's nice to find a balance somewhere.

    Second, size does not always matter. I'll predict she'll make better use of her money. That's based on her experience (once again) and the changing narrative in the campaign (see below).  

    Spare me the evaporating lead story. That was based on name recognition rather than firm support for her. Toss in the ferocious wave of criticism leveled at him from all angles (MSM/Blogs)and it's natural it went down. Now in reaction to that wave - and the winnowing of candidates - folks are moving back to her. However, this time it's a positive and informed choice. (Remember the second marriage/partnership is often the strongest folks.)

    More to the point, that's generally the Net narrative. The real core Democratic voters have never left her.

    So yeah, he has more money. Whatever, remember I'm used to fighting Republicans who always have more money. I'll still take my candidate and the odds any day of the week.


    Real Dems (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    More to the point, that's generally the Net narrative. The real core Democratic voters have never left her.  

    True and wont but...

    .......................thus is a problem an urgent one you have a Political sect of Progressives that the Party has allowed to masquerade as Party operatives prancing around on cable TV shows spouting off ranting anti Hillary slurs claiming they speak for the base....


    Size doesn't matter? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:21:40 PM EST
    We keep saying that. :-)

    Well, it does matter at the polls -- with a sizeable million more votes cast for Clinton so far (including Florida and Michigan, as they were votes cast -- before that gets point out to me again).


    See, this is the problem.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    what is a 'True Dem'? Who decides who is a 'True Dem'? Shouldn't we as a party be open to many different interpretations of what a 'True Dem' is? Both sides ae getting people the side is accusing of not being a 'True Dem.'
    Or are we going to be like the Republicans and have specific criteria over what makes a 'True Repub'? This goes for both Clinton and Obama supporters!

    You should note ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by loneoak on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    That all the money HRC raised in the last 36 hours all goes back into her pocket to pay back the loan!!!   All you suckers giving donations to the campaign under the impression that you are forwarding the campaign are really just giving her money back.  If she really thought her campaign was viable, the loan terms would have more than 3 days.  Furthermore, this means that Obama's $8M+ is in the bank, ready to spend while HRC's bank is still empty after that $3M in 3 days plea.  I'd love to know if her small donors return to her after they know this.

    She doesn't have to pay herself back right away (none / 0) (#20)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    but that doesn't change that she has a deficit.

    needing $$$ (none / 0) (#1)
    by wasabi on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    I generally save my cash to donate during the general election.  I didn't know the Clinton camp was cash strapped.  Knowing that now, I sent them some bucks.  Pretty simple, IMHO.

    Yep..... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    it's looking like that 5 mill "loan" was a fundraising stunt.  And it worked.

    I'll never cease to be amazed that people send these crooks their hard-earned money.  I've donated time to a candidate I liked, but never money, because the times I have volunteered I've seen how it's wasted.  Charity is a better place for money to burn...or the track.

    So does posting a link to one (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    candidates fund raising page and not the others, count as an endorsement?

    No question this is what she needed (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    to stay in the race.

    ok, i gotta laff... (none / 0) (#10)
    by cdo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    why is the obama camp turning this into a contest? hillary was having a rough time and need donors, ok i get that. but obama's ppl are now digging deep so they can do what? send money to keep his other money company? if thats what u want to do fine, LOLZ! You know of course you are helping Hillary raise more money...

    I'll be donating tonight (none / 0) (#11)
    by 165 Valley on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    I will be donating to Hillary tonight.  Obama is a piece of fluff who hasn't done anything.

    Its over (none / 0) (#12)
    by Heather on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    you just don't know it yet

    For Obama? Maybe... (none / 0) (#14)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    I'm preferring experience myself to the secular Democratic equivalent of Elmer Gantry.

    what's over? please define! (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    how many of the 35,000 donations (none / 0) (#13)
    by SpindleCityDem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    are new?  Barack raised $35 million in one month from 170,000 NEW donations. 650,000 total in January alone...
    Maybe lackeys from the DLC can help her raise more money.

    More Excess (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    And that amount is obscene and excessive....but if you want to tithe to the vessel that is Obama than of course that is your choice me no

    So... (none / 0) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    the people that gave Clinton the money lead when she was the inevitable candidate were tithing too right?

    My husband (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    just gave her $50, and my $50 will join his tonight.

    (our first donations of the election season!)


    Cripes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    McCain and Huckabee did it with little money, why did he need that much money? If he had a message, why did it not just resonate? When did we become the moneyed party?

    "High information" voters, wine track, (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    college degrees, professionals.

    As opposed to struggling, beer drinker, GEDs; you know, like we are.


    I think (none / 0) (#43)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    34 million was from Oprah.

    MoveOn endorsement (none / 0) (#18)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    is probably helping in a way no one thought of at the time.

    MoveOn (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    who stabbed Hillary in the back by giving their support to the candidate that did not come to their defense when the eyes of the nation were on them--that Moveon?

    You know, this fundraising thing has turned into a contest, and I think Obama will definitely win the race to getting the most cash.

    Unfortunately, that's not the race that matters.

    The more money he gets, the more establishment he looks, the more like a politician he seems, the better for Hillary.  When folks hear things like $30mm, they wonder where it comes from, and that makes stories like the Rezko connection even more interesting.


    Rezko (none / 0) (#46)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    Is smalltime compared to Hsu.  The Clintons wrote the book on crooked campaign contributions.  Then they wrote a screenplay, produced, directed and starred in the film version.

    You Seem To Forget That Norma Hsu (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    contributed to Obama also. If Hsu is your standard, I guess that means that Obama is writing the sequel to the book on crooked campaign contributions?

    Anecdote: (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    Last night I talked to a female, probably 37 years old, has a six month old child.  She really dislikes HRC, sd. she's corrupt.  I sd. how so?  She sd. there must have been something behind all those allegations, and did I really think OJ didn't murder his wife?  Wow!

    Send some dough! (none / 0) (#21)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are hard core and deep in her corner.  If she needs the cash we step up and send some dough.  I am so proud of this movement.  Go Hill.......

    There is a term for this (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    "blog clutter"

    Oops- (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    This post refers to SpindleCityDem's post.

    LOL post (none / 0) (#39)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:36:08 PM EST
    Didn't you mean magnum opus?

    Proof Ron Paul Wing Nuts are supporting O (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST

    spindlecity (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    Do not copy past entire articles as comments.

    I deleted it. you can repost a link if you like.

    One thing that (none / 0) (#37)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    Obama supporters just DO NOT realize...

    If Hillary has to drop out of the race due to funding then Obama will absolutely lose the GE. Why? Because he cannot win without the women's vote.

    We need Hillary in this race until the convention. If I have to donate to keep her in... I'm donating.

    The Dem Party cannot be split for the GE. The donation is for the good of the Party.

    Doesn't make sense? (none / 0) (#40)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    Are you saying women would prefer to vote for John McCain (100% pro-life record) over Barack Obama, who has a near perfect score on women's issues? It's the same as saying black people will vote for McCain if Clinton wins - it makes no sense.

    And why, in particular, would Clinton running out of money do that? When all's said and done, Clinton will have raised over 120 million for the primaries - it's not his fault she's not planned out how to use that money effectively.


    UM. It makes (none / 0) (#42)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    alot of sense.

    I'm saying that women WILL be upset if Hillary has to drop out of the race. AND that there WILL be women who will not vote for him.... He will have to win them over. And that is not going to easy and may be impossible.

    At this point the Obama camp is SPIN city on any accomplishment tha Hillary aquires. Such comments above... he raised more money.... then there is the ... he won more states.... It is like they are so competetive they have forgotten that the base Dems will be needed in the GE.... The base Dems that support Hillary. And if you think the base Dems won't bolt... it has happened in past elections.

    The Obama camp is very aggressive. Sometimes this aggresson really motivate the Hillary Camp and/or at times it is viewed as sexist.

    I will vote Dem Party... but as my husband always says.... if momma's not happy aint nobody happy. Women will revolt... that I can tell you.

    And don't kid yourself into thinking that it is a given that Obama can beat McCain.


    You don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    that Obama would be the first woman president.



    Just like Bill (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:13:11 PM EST
    was the first black president? ;)

    I didn't say he wouldn't have to win them over (none / 0) (#48)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    But I think it's kind of a double standard to complain that Obama hasn't shown the fight necessary to take on the Republicans and then criticize him for being too hard on Clinton. How's he supposed to demonstrate his ability to campaign hard if the (supposedly) softball stuff now is too offensive?

    Objectively, he's great on women's issues. He spoke out and raised money against the abortion ban initiative in South Dakota. He's been a consistent advocate for women's issues in the Senate. He's fought to deal systemically with women's health care issues in low-income communities.

    So I think he's got grounds to reasonably ask for women's votes (or at least the votes of those that vote on women's issues) if he should win the nomination.

    Otherwise, you'd be basically saying that every primary race Clinton runs in, the women won't vote for the other person if she loses.


    Isn't Obama On Record As Saying That Clinton's (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    supporters will vote for him but his supporters will not vote for her.

    Why is it OK for him to do that and wrong for a woman voter to point out that some women won't support him?

    Obama supporters say it is A-OK for him to point that out because it is true. Well it is just as true that some women might not vote for him. Once again, we are dealing with double standards.


    That really got women mad (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    Sort of like what AAs were saying, taking their vote for granted. I still don't get it why Obama supporters do not see how insulting that was to women.

    That Statement Has The Potential To (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    come back and bite him in the tush if he is the candidate in November. There are a lot of women who are Independent voters and taking them for granted and making them angry is not a smart thing to do. IIRC one of the reasons that Kerry lost was that he did not get enough of the independent women vote.

    Also, her supporters include Latinos. Another demographic that does always vote along party lines.


    I guess my question is (none / 0) (#59)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:56:12 PM EST
    how is he offending the Latino vote? He's been very active in reaching out for them. Or do you subscribe to the theory that Latinos are racist and won't vote for a black man?

    My Point, Which You Chose To Ignore, Was (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    that his comment taking the voters (unaffiliated women and Latinos) supporting Hillary for granted has a tendency to tick them off. Ticking voters off is a good way not to get their votes in the GE.

    Nice try turning it into something racial though.


    No, my question still stands (none / 0) (#62)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    How is he taking them for granted? He's working very hard for their vote.

    Reaching out to them now (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM EST
    is late in the game.  He's been in politics for 10 years.  What did he do to reach out to them before this campaign?  I haven't heard anything from him or others on that -- all I heard was him saying in the debate that Latinos/as in Chicago voted for him.


    Without an answer, that sounds like taking them for granted, too.


    You're reading it wrong (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:54:00 PM EST
    Obama is running based on the idea that he can increase turnout. Decide for yourself if this is true or not, but it's one of his arguments. Those people (if he's right) are turning out for him, and  wouldn't otherwise turn out. Presumably he's mostly talking about the youth vote.

    That's completely different from saying that you'd vote for McCain over Obama. I can respect women who say they won't be as energized if Clinton loses, but it's ridiculous to actively want to work against him.


    He Is Basically Saying That His Voters (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:20:09 PM EST
    would vote for the Republican candidate or not vote if he is not the nominee. Hillary could say the same thing except she has chosen not to do that.

    Not all the increased turnout is due to the youth vote and not all of the youth vote is going to Obama. You are completely ignoring the fact that Hillary is bringing in new voters because she is a woman and has a long relationship with the Latino community.

    Also, please provide me with a link to the part in my comment that said that I would vote for McCain over Obama or that I would work against him. I purposely stressed Independent voters in my comment.


    No he didn't say that (none / 0) (#63)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:27:14 PM EST
    He said that they wouldn't turn out to vote. I made all the disclaimers in the above post that you don't have to believe in his message that he can increase turnout to realize that what he is saying is logically consistent - "I will increase turnout; if I am not the candidate, then turnout will be less". It's not taking anyone for granted (unless, of course, you're a Clinton partisan and want to see it that way).

    Please Tell Me What He Means (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    when he states as fact that "Hillary's voters will vote for me."

    That could and does come across as taking their vote for granted. (unless, of course, if you're an Obama partisan and refuse to see it that way).


    It is fairly easy to (none / 0) (#68)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    pick on the women that the media "love to hate". And he takes his shots... "tea party". Let's see... "Iron my shirts" ... I beleive SHE was accused of PLANTING these guys... ridiculous. And list goes on... women are ticked.

    But I think it's kind of a double standard to complain that Obama hasn't shown the fight necessary to take on the Republicans and then criticize him for being too hard on Clinton.

    McCain is not going to be so easy... media likes him. And McCain is going for the "Reagan Dem". Heard him today.

    Objectively, he's great on women's issues.

    Not so quick.. I'm from Il. I still remember the "present votes" on women's issues.  And...So much for change.. he went to Springfield and fell right in line with all the others.


    What about his other votes in IL? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:19:26 PM EST
    The ones where he fought to expand health care to low-income women. Or where he fought successfully to keep open Planned Parenthoods in low-income areas, where women had no other options. Or where IL NOW came out and endorsed him?

    And please, please, seperate the words of a few crazy Obama supporters online from the candidate. Obama would never accuse her of planting those signs and would have been right up there denouncing them with her. And you'd be crazy to think otherwise - he is a full-stop progressive on race and gender issues.

    Just because there is a lot of sexism (that very rightfully needs to be pushed back against) targeting Clinton doesn't mean that she is automatically the best candidate. Women and men alike should be ticked - about the sexism. But that's not an argument for a candidate. It is, however, a great reason to call out the haters (like Chris Matthews). And, likewise, I wouldn't want anyone voting for Obama just because there is a lot of racism out there.


    Don't agee (none / 0) (#71)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    I beleive he could have done better.

    And it was the media that pulled that shirt cr@p. But that is just it... his suporters are going way over the top. Sen Obama has not come out strong enough against this stuff. Closing your eyes to sexist acts is not supporting women. He has had opportunities to stand up to these action... but he did not! Hillary has gotten rid of people who crossed the line. Haven't seen him fire anyone.

    Just because there is a lot of sexism (that very rightfully needs to be pushed back against) targeting Clinton doesn't mean that she is automatically the best candidate.

    It is turning OFF the women .. that is my point... they won't follow Sen Obama after this type of behavior.

    I believe Sen Clinton is the best candidate. I love the way she can explain complex ideas in an understable way. I love they way I know her stance on issues. I like the way she is focusing on the Repubs and showing how her plans are better.


    Okay (none / 0) (#72)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    I think I understand you better. I can respect why you pick one candidate over another on the issues.

    My issue is that I have trouble when progressives start calling other progressives crypto-republicans in a primary contest. It doesn't help any of us. I do the same thing in other forums to the Obama supporters that say that about Clinton.

    Also, I guess I don't understand why you are blaming Obama though - he has never taken the opportunity to make sexist slights against her (as, for example, Edwards did). Nor have any of his campaign surrogates. True, he should be calling out the sexism, and it would be nice if he would. But Clinton hasn't said much about the racism that people have flung at Obama - I guess in campaigns in this day and age that's being too gracious.


    He hasn't? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:50:20 PM EST
    Again, "tea party."  And now, "the claws are out."  Maybe you just don't hear such things the way that women do -- because we who have been around a while and have tried to attain even a bit of progress have heard such things about us.

    Money (none / 0) (#38)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    One thing I'm surprised about that hasn't gotten much attention is how money will play a roll in the general election if McCain is indeed the Republican nominee.

    Obama and McCain agreed a looong time ago to take public funds if they were the nominees of their parties.  Anyone think Hillary would/should make this same commitment?  Does it impact anything in how you think about the Dem primary?  Would Obama and McCain stick to their word?

    Just some thoughts.

    Hey she's almost got enough (none / 0) (#44)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:11:40 PM EST
    Just about $300,000 more to that $4,000,000 and Hillary will be able to pay Mark Penn's salary!

    It's $6.5 million in 24 hrs. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    Check This Out!!! You Will be Surprised (none / 0) (#51)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague