home

Hillary Asks Donors to Transfer General Election Contributions to 2012 Senate Campaign

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Reading the LA Times blog, one would think Hillary is raising money for a 2012 presidential run. She's not. As the article it quotes from the New York Observer makes clear, and as was anticipated in this June, 2008 CBS News article, she's under a 60 day deadline and is asking donors to allow her to transfer the money to her 2012 Senate campaign rather than requiring her to refund it.

Chris Dodd did the same thing. His situation may be iffy because he agreed to public financing which Hillary did not. He's waiting for a ruling from the FEC.

The point is Hillary only has 60 days from the end of her campaign to either refund the money donated to her general campaign or get permission to redesignate it to another campaign. I don't see this as an indicator she's planning another Presidential run.

< Bush's Third Term | Hip-Hop Musical Guests During Democratic National Convention >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Asks Donors to Transfer General Election Contributions to 2012 Senate Campaign | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is it the "end of her campaign" if she (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    merely suspended?

    My question also (4.33 / 3) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    I got the impression from articles I read that the end is when a candidate concedes or when a nominee is officially selected at the convention.

    I am wondering about the signal of this.  An option was that she could ask donors to transfer the GE funds to Obama's campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Choices, choices (4.75 / 4) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    I read yesterday that Hillary supporters have contributed $540,000 to Obama, and Obama supporters have contributed less than $80,000 to retire her debt.

    I'm glad she's keeping her supporter contributions for her own future.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, apparently the Obama VP vetters (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    haven't ruled out Clinton yet.  Keep your cards close to your chest, Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    I don't see this as an indicator she's planning another Presidential run.

    Trasfering the money means she won't really have to raise any for herself in the next election cycles, it frees her up to raise money for other people, which of course inscreases her stature.  Good for her!

    She could easily give $10M to the DSCC (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    and not have any trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    And well she may (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    but this is different, mmm?  And did you mean to suggest that Clinton might game the system?  That sure doesn't sound like a smart sitting Senator.  Or like you.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not gaming (none / 0) (#35)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    I understand that it's standard practice for politicians with hefty reelection funds and easy contests to share the wealth. It's a power thing. It's all about power.

    [ Parent ]
    Standard, but not out of rank altruism (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    Hillary would, and should, expect some loyalty and support in return for her financial and campaign support.

    She and Bill have raised millions for other Dems over the years.  They've lent their fame and popularity to many a person who went the other way.

    So I don't expect to see a lot of big chunks of change handed over the general Dem anything.  To particular pols who support her policies, yes.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a logistics issue (none / 0) (#43)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    She can give money to funds without contribution limits, like some of the private charities run by pols, but she can't transfer money to campaigns without jumping through hoops. She can, however, give money to the DNC with the understanding that it will be used to run ads in particular areas, to help particular candidates. At least they used to be able to do this. As you pointed out elsewhere, the rules change so often it's hard to keep up.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it's not gaming (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:54:53 PM EST
    Please see andgarden's comment for context.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    as a Rasmussen poll from yesterday which shows Obama at 45% and McCain at 41% also says:

    "McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%."


    And in 1996, (none / 0) (#37)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    polls showed Colin Powell winning a hypothetical match-up against Bill by double digits.

    [ Parent ]
    Hah, then maybe (none / 0) (#46)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    Colin should have run after all!!

    [ Parent ]
    I read somewhere once (none / 0) (#47)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    That the real powers didn't want Powel to run, and hence he didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    His wife didn't want him to (none / 0) (#110)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Nothing to see here. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    It's funny to watch people flip out over this. I heard some seriously crazy people on the radio the other day fretting about Hillary doing this.

    Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.

    Really. They need to get lives (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    as this is such non-news.  I so often wonder if the folks who freek at such stuff realize that they are so blatantly revealing their naivete and lack of ability to research the most basic info, at best.  

    Or they are revealing their CDS, which may be revealing of much deeper biases and neuroses.  Best they just button it and sit back and learn a bit, huh?

    [ Parent ]

    truthfully, (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    why would she waste her time in 2012? it's pretty clear that the democratic party leadership has no actual interest in nominating a winning candidate, and she can accomplish a lot in the senate.

    she'll be the good soldier, and campaign vigorously for sen. obama, but we all know he's a lost cause, whether he wins or not. if his past is any prelude to his future (it is, just like bush's was), in 2012, the republicans will sweep the field.

    yeah, i know, i'm going to get jumped on. so what? the ugly truth is much harsher than any republican fiction.

    Depends who wins in Nov. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    If McCain wins, then he becomes the next Jimmy Carter president, instead of Obama.

    And it's unlikely Dems will be able to succeed with the same tricks to rid the party of FDR Dems that they used this year.  Gaming the caucuses won't work a second time.  Republicans would be in a worse place than they are now (or at least no better).  It'd be Clinton sweeping the primary races and an easy win in the 2012 GE.

    However, Jeralyn is right, she's not setting up her 2012 presidential campaign now.  I've seen the same misinterpretation of her email elsewhere.  Folks just aren't reading it correctly.

    [ Parent ]

    I am still asking who is "the Democratic (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    Party" that decided she shouldn't be the nominee? Yesterday I posted a statement by Craig Crawford of MSNBC in which he states there will be no roll call at the convention because Obama does not want to highlight just how close the nomination was and the fact that it was the superdelegates who put him over the top. What a slap to the Clintons.  Bill was the only two term president in 40 years and a sucessful one at that. Not only was the race decided by the SD's but the basis for their decision was on delegate counts that bordered on fraud. What is their problem and just who are these kingmakers?

    [ Parent ]
    correction: What a slap to voters! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No roll call? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    Next thing we will find out that there will be no Democratic convention at all cause that might turn out to be too embarrassing, too. I bet there will be  Dems protesting the Obama nom.

    P.S. Slapping the voters ... indeed.
    Remember the times when we actually believed in "every vote counts?" Since 2000 we learned otherwise   but the Big Dems ruined every voter's hope left. Even Saint Carter was okay with it. btw This will be the first year ever that I will not watch the Dem convention :-((  

    [ Parent ]

    "Bill was..." (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    As far as making arguments advocating a roll call vote for HRC at the convention is concerned, I think a good case can be made based solely on the basis of the delegates she won and the other strengths of her campaign.

    Her husband's successes--as the first Dem elected to two terms since Roosevelt or the first to serve in two terms in 40 years seem irrelevant to me to why SHE deserves the roll call.

    Her advocates can convincingly say: She earned it.

    Myself, I'm kind of neutral on the subject--pragmatic and so concerned about how the added divisiveness of a roll call will work against us in November, but also idealistic on the  subject of not suppressing dissent under the Big Tent, wanting to believe we can handle it.

    [ Parent ]

    Many of us believe (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    that a roll call vote for Hillary will actually lessen the divisiveness of this election. If the roll is called and the delegates vote as they were chosen to vote, and the super-delegates cast their votes for Obama, his candidacy achieves a legitimacy that is now in question by a huge number of voters. If Hillary's name is not in nomination and her delegates are not allowed to vote for her, there will remain this question of what might have happened if the vote had been taken. Obama's reluctance to allow this to happen sends a message that he's afraid he will not prevail if the vote is taken. That fear drives the opposition. And deciding to choose this convention where the first female candidate to achieve this many votes as the one to not call a roll is not good PR for 18,000,000 voters. There will be Clinton supporters who will be protesting in Denver either way. The question is will the protesters include the almost 2000 Clinton supporters who are on the convention floor? All of the arguments about whether Clinton ran a good campaign or not or whether she killed Vince Foster are moot. She has the support of nearly 18,000,000 voters whether that suits Obama and the DNC or not. The roll call vote is the best chance Obama has to unite more of the party. To block it is a huge mistake.

    [ Parent ]
    Might Lessen The Divisivness (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:32:09 PM EST
    That's part of my reasoning for having the roll call, but also, as I say, it's my idealism that democracy and the Democrat party are both (historically) messy and contentious, and it would be great to celebrate that with the ballot.

    But I can't fault people wanting to play it safe too much because we (Americans) can't afford another 4 years of Republican governance. As bad as the Dems can be--and in reality, I'm an independent whose been shanghaied into Dem registration by my state's draconian electoral laws and hold no quarter with party loyalty--they will be better than more of the same.

    But, as I say, I'm divided (just like the party) on this.

    [ Parent ]

    There are Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    who will never vote for Obama, but there are those who will be persuaded to vote for (D) after his name if they believe he is the legitimate candidate. I think the risk of a messy floor fight is small - unless the supers don't put him over on the first ballot. But that's not going to happen, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Ironically (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    if I thought there was a plausible possibility that Clinton could contend (and win) at the convention, even as an Obama supporter, I would feel I had to support that. That's the way it should be. That's not what I fear. I believe he won fair and square (as fair and square as the rules and the lay of the land were going in), and I'm confident he'll be nominated at the convention.

    I just honestly have no idea how satisfying it would be for how many of Clinton's supporters to have the roll call. it seems to me it would be an occasion for unifying revolt in the party. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Notice what I said was how SATISFYING, not how UNIFYING it would be, because I don't demand that of anyone. People will keep kvetching and keep trying to throw sand in the gears etc. or they will not. They'll decide to support Obama or they'll vow never to.

    I guess since I'm not a Dem in reality, and since I've had many half baked nominees thrown at me as 'my only choice', I'm never going to attempt to yank anyone else along who doesn't want to come.

    [ Parent ]

    All of that really doesn't matter. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    It's not the unifying, it's not the satisfaction, it's not taking the chance that she'll win the nom that is important. It's simply the right thing to do.

    What is important is upholding tradition and allowing her and her delegates the same respect and the same treatment and the opportunity to vote for her that every other Dem primary candidate has enjoyed in 16 out of the last 18 elections.

    There is no good reason to change things this time.     If she is treated differently than every other primary candidate, it's just one more example of what will be called blatant sexism. And possibly CDS.

    The question should be "why wouldn't she have a roll call vote?" It should be automatic. The roll call vote is the NORM, not the exception.

    [ Parent ]

    Think I've Made It Pretty Clear (none / 0) (#83)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    that the reason I would support a roll call vote is because it's the right thing to do.

    I've expressed my concerns about it too. And I understand why others have those concerns.

    But ultimately, I don't get asked (so that it matters), do I?

    Because if I do, I would say have the roll call and have the night of it be a celebration not only of Clinton's candidacy, but also of the strength and vigor of the party that it has two formidable candidates with equally formidable supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    certainly is the right thing to do (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    Obama didn't win the nomination on pledged delegates, and SDs don't vote until convention. How can they NOT do a roll call and still expect the country to see his candidacy as anything but a manipulated game move?


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps the DNC is afraid of some (none / 0) (#152)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST
    buyer's remorse from some of the Super D's, at least according to this blogger, at least 8 would shift if given the chance.

    http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=259

    "I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here's what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his."

    "A large phone banking effort to the super d's combined with Obama's flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary."

    (sorry having trouble with html tags)

    [ Parent ]

    Let's face it. (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM EST
    It's a lose - lose situation for Obama - unless he could win a fair convention roll call. There is a well validated perception among Hillary supporters that she was cheated in the primaries. If they don't put her name into nomination - there will be a huge mess. After all, there are 1600 delegates pledged to her. If they do put her name into nomination, she could win - but if Obama still wins fairly, then he is definitely the party leader, not a poseur.
    It's a gamble that I doubt they will take, unless they absolutely have to. They are scared to take the chance. And they will lose in November unless it is done fairly. You can't screw half the Democratic party and expect their support.

    [ Parent ]
    One Reason I'll Be Sad (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    if they don't hold a roll call is that not doing so will encourage specious themes like "Hillary was cheated" to even more firmly take root.

    If they don't hold a roll call it will be because they are trying to promote this 'unity' image and want to downplay the divisions, not because they fear Obama will lose. That's just nonsense.

    I do respect that you would accept the results of a roll call even if Obama was the winner. That's more than many Clinton supporters seem able to do.

    [ Parent ]

    You might be surprised (none / 0) (#177)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    at how many Clinton supporters will at least vote for Obama if he wins a "fair and square" roll call vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Yes and No (none / 0) (#179)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    In my non internet life, all the Clinton supporters I know are now going to vote for Obama, with emotions that range from resigned to unenthusiastic.
    Myself, after his FISA vote, I'm edging toward 'much less enthusiastic.'

    I know there are many here who seem to feel the same. Sometimes it's easy to get distracted by the outraged voices in both camps and lose sight of the larger numbers who are simply ready for a change from the W years.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's not a caucus so anything can happen! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:50:21 PM EST
     

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is also refusing to do town (none / 0) (#120)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    hall events with McCain and to take questions from his audiences.  He was at a Latino (La Reza) function several days ago and he refused any interaction. He was applauded, but not wildly as when he mentioned Hillary.  I am guessing he was afraid of questions about Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    That's fair. (none / 0) (#78)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    I hope you realize that your attitude about the flag-burning issue was not exactly informed, but based on inflammatory rhetoric.

    I will never be convinced Obama's the better candidate.  All you have to do is reread what she said during the primary.

    There' s absolutely no comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    All I Have To Do (none / 0) (#79)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    Setting aside the flag burning piece, because you're  not getting my point on that, I respect your decision to support and vote for the person you believe is best for the job (and the country).

    Me too.

    I was awake during the primaries and I listened to both sides carefully. Clinton didn't close the deal for me. In fact, many times her campaign only served to remind me of why she wasn't my candidate. And I think I felt that then as strongly as you seem to feel that about Obama today.

    [ Parent ]

    What was your point, exactly? (none / 0) (#81)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    Are you a one-issue voter?

    Doubtful.

    Are you supporting Obama because he made noises about Iraq when he didn't have to put anything, anything at all, on the line with that supposed stance.

    Frankly, I'm not understanding why people support this guy.

    He has nothing to bring to the table.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, Iraq (none / 0) (#82)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    was one issue I didn't hold against Clinton.

    I'm probably one of the few people who call themselves progressive who will say that, but it's true.

    [ Parent ]

    Since you didn't answer my question. (none / 0) (#101)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    I'll repeat it.

    What was your concern about the flag-burning issue?  You haven't made it clear, and I've seen at least two people try to set you straight.

    [ Parent ]

    The Two Who Tried to 'Set Me Straight' (none / 0) (#170)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    I acknowledged the points of people who disagreed with me and who pointed out the strategy of Hillary's actions on flag burning.

    In fact, I even carried their arguments to a later discussion of this topic in another thread and presented them respectfully.

    I've answered your question in all that exhaustive discussion, and if you're interested, you can find my answer back there.

    [ Parent ]

    It was the Jeremiah Wright issue (none / 0) (#121)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    that turned me off as well as the thin resume.  You are evidently okay with that.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently Okay With That (none / 0) (#171)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    Yes.

    [ Parent ]
    Ironically, what you seem to be afraid of (none / 0) (#186)
    by angie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    is democracy.  Despite your confidence that Obama won "fair and square" -- he does not have have the # of pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination. FDR went to the '32 convention short 90 delegates of the 2/3 needed. He didn't win the nomination until the 4th ballot after a contentious contest. Guess what? The Democratic Party survived.
    All these "worries" about having the candidate who won the popular vote and only trails by approximately 135 pledged delegates (that's allowing MI & FL to "stand" as the RNC ruled) on the ballot is preposterous.
    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" -- ring any bells?

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that ironic about the SDs (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:16:29 PM EST
    after the Obama campaign spent months whining how unfair their power was? As for Hillary- more effort to attack her over nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    For the first year of the primary race, (2.37 / 8) (#50)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    most Democrats were not enthusiastic about Hillary running for President.  Many long time Dems felt they couldn't trust the Clintons and didn't want the GOP to rehash and remind us of: 1) Bill's destruction of the Clinton legacy by his antics in the Oval Office and his subsequent lying about it, and 2) The unethical pardons of terrorists that bought her Hispanic votes for her first run for Senator of NY, 3) The inappropriateness of dynasties like Bush or Clinton in our government.

    Hillary's work this spring was admirable and reflected her keen ability to communicate with the electorate.  However the display of respect and/or support for Hillary Clinton by Repubs now and during the primary is fake.  If she had won, their talking points about murders, cheating, unethical pardons of terrorists and rich Clinton donors, her relationship with Bill, etc. would be in our faces for the next four months.  Her surge in votes as the primary wore on was in large part due to untold hundreds of thousands of Republicans crossing party lines to vote for Hillary, the candidate they really wanted run against (Limbaugh Operation Chaos).

    So who are the Democrats who chose Obama over Hillary?  From my perspective, they're not all young college kids.  Many, many middle aged men and women voted for Obama because after carefully looking at the candidates, they decided he was more honest and trustworthy than she.  Time will tell if that is true since pols are pols, as BTD says.  

    We just finished a close primary race where the electorate went pretty much 50-50. There was racism and sexism from both sides, and false racism and sexism claims.  If the party leadership had supported Hillary instead, we'd still have a split party, only a different group of Democrats would be furious.  The young Obama supporters would walk away instead of pounding the streets for our party this fall.  AA's would have a car wash day and not vote.  People who gave up on American politics years ago and who came back to vote for Obama would leave in disgust after concluding that the Dem party is still a bunch of cheaters.  Either direction the Dem leadership went, our party would have been split.  

    I'm impressed with Hillary's work this spring and I hope she uses the support she's generated to further our issues.  I hope she doesn't run for Prez in 2012 and I hope she says she won't before the Nov '08 election because her potential run gives Hillary supporters incentive to vote for McSame to enhance her changes four years from now.  But our country can't survive four more years of this.  We are going bankrupt, and McCain will keep us on the sorry path we've been on for the past eight years.

    If Hillary fully supports the Dem party and our issues, she'll make it clear to her supporters that she will not push to be selected the Dem nominee at the convention, and that their continued requests for the roll call is hurting the party by keeping us mired in the primary conflict.

    [ Parent ]

    Falsenesses (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    "There was racism and sexism from both sides, and false racism and sexism claims."

    And false equivalencies from one side, continuing until today.

    Please provide something to back up statements that Hillaries growing support in the last half of the primaries (as opposed to Obama's flatlining) was due to Republicans.  Just 'cuz Rush said to, doesn't make it so.  I hope you are not putting him out there as a credible authority.  On anything.

    Finally, Hillary has no duty to rectify the sins of the DNC in throwing the game for Obama.  If Dean, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, Brazile etc etc were real Democrats (see, that argument can be used both ways), they would take steps to remedy their behavior and bring the party together.  Why are you not pestering them to cowboy up?  Why is it Hillary's responsibility to carry the entire party and Obama over the GE finish line?

    Putting her name on ballot and into nomination at the convention does not divide the party.  That ship has sailed.  The party is divided.  It may shine a light on a longtime coming divide, it's true.  But this insistence on fake conformity is a tool of demagogues and dictators, not democracy.  It's the last resort of the fearful and irresponsible.  It's the same as the patriotic jingoism that got us into a war with Iraq, just pointed at a different target.

    Even now, Clinton's to blame for everything.  Everything is her responsibility.  She's so mean!  How dare she insist that the concerns of her supporters be included in the party platform!  The gall!  How dare she want her delegates to have a measly chance to vote for her!  Who does she think she is, a representative of 18 million voters or something?

    The thing is, as often happens with people who've been in power too long, the DNC fails to understand that forced fakey sweep-under-the-rug unity is less effective than following fair procedure.  You'd think they'd have learned after the backlash from the show-trial RBC meeting.

    Unless they are afraid they'll lose.  Then it may be worth the gamble for them.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not 'unity' that way; it's Totalitarianism (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by andrys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:18:22 AM EST
    A truly 'unifying' candidate who is sure of 'the math' after commitments made as well would call for a roll-call by the usual convention rules and long tradition so that the other 'historic' candidacy could be celebrated as well.  

    There is no way that a roll call will be used for anything but that unless something extremely challenging to his candidacy occurred and then it wouldn't be up to him anyway if so, whether a roll call had been approved by him or not.

      HOWARD DEAN had his name put in nomination with a roll call vote.  He didn't do too well last time.  Is that how it's done?  You get to be nominated if not too many people voted for you?

      Is it because she represents so many voters that Brazile and Obama don't want the roll call?  

      Dean at first stressed that convention rules are that there is one.

      Even Ted Kennedy, 750 delegates behind, had one, and his unwillingness to support the sitting Democrat president after Carter won in the roll call was said to help bring the loss that year.
      Yet Clinton has already given Obama support and then some.  The reality is that it was a close election and they both brought an unprecedented crowd to the Democrat primaries.

      All this insistence of going for a crowning by removing all traces of there having been a contest is really quite awful.

      We all count, and if he is a secure man he will ask that it be done.  He will finally do something that's unifying, instead of just talking about it.  Leadership is up to him.

      They've acted as if she was never a real candidate but a fly to be swatted away (after media frowner Howard Fineman said that someone should stop her, Olbermann summed the attitude up by saying "Yeah, somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

      He also said she was a "third" person who tried to 'shoehorn' her way in, and Tom Brokow quickly and thoroughly corrected him.

      There should be a civilized celebration of the tremendous voting power and energy that went into this year's primaries.  It should be celebrated not swept under the convention floor.   Not recognizing it will bring an entirely false unity and will likely cause extreme distrust and not unite the spirit at all.  

      People will see him in a better light if he ever gets it together to really acknowledge her without worrying so much about what it'll cost him.

     As has been said, he has the delegate math and now the commitments.  What is he worried about.  His aura?  Any will be dimmed even more if he acts in this way.

      Now, if he makes a deal with her so that she gets something (some kind of acknowledgement in the hall that is not just a momentary thing) and that means the 18 million who voted for her are recognized as a heavy part of this year, he can help unite people behind him, as a man of grace instead of a would be petulant prince (which is the real danger now).

     

    [ Parent ]

    You are wrong! 100%. (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    "Real world" Democrats were plenty enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton running for Prez in the first year.

    You are repeating Clinton-hating blog speak here. All the reasons in paragraph one are examples of it.

    People may have had doubts as far back as 2004 that Hillary would have a chance but that was mainly due to "sexist" reasons. Women just don't get elected Prez in the US.

    I always thought HC was Prez material but didn't believe she really had a chance because of the oldfashioned attitudes in this country. I often talked to people on the other side of the Atlantic and they always thought she was brilliant. Back to her first visit with BC after 1992. Brilliant!!!

     Listen to folks like Bill Maher at the time who thought a HC run for Prez would make another loss for the Dem party a certainty ... and nothing had to do with Clinton hate. A couple years later he changed his mind and said so on his show. Things had changed 180 degrees.

    From then on the blogs stepped up Hillary Clinton hate and bashing. No way, Hillary Clinton! bloggers like Moulitsas gossiped with Dowd during ykos 2006. Arianna Huffington, always a Clinton hater, led her fans with over the top HC bashing, innuendos, and lies on her HuffPost.

    By the time Merkel was Chancellor I thought Hillary Clinton "as a woman" had a good chance to get elected ... and so did the majority of Democratic voters who wouldn't know what dkos et al was even it if bit them. Hard.

    HC's first primary year looked excellent from the start. All the other candidates looked like sophomores compared to her and by fall her Dem nom seemed a done deal.

    Clearly  it was Time for the Clinton-bashing press pundits to step up the Clinton hate. MSNBC and the Russerts decided to ruin it for her big time starting with the October debate. From then on  pundits yakked and yakked 24/7 how Obama could best attack Hillary and beat her in this race (and Pres. Clinton). Since Obama knew he could no wrong with the press he went for it ...

    Obama may have "won" the Dem primaries but the case could be made just as well that it was actually Hillary Clinton who won this race. And Considering the Clinton trashing media that is quite an achievement I say.

    I am not surprised she didn't take this to the convention.

    But she should have. No doubt in my mind about that. She should have.

     

    [ Parent ]

    What digby said ... (3.66 / 3) (#61)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    I just remembered that celebrated awarded female blogger digby - who is so proud that she "often" defended Hillary Clinton during the primaries - stated not too long ago that Obama won this primary and the Dem nom "fair and square." Sexism may have been an ugly part of this race but is was not the reason that Obama won this race.

    Right.

    Calgon take me away ... again ;-))

    [ Parent ]

    I hear you, and I respect your opinion (1.00 / 4) (#63)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    about Hillary.  She's my senator and I want her to be successful.  But like many old time Democrats, I don't want her to be president.  

    You are repeating Clinton-hating blog speak here.

    No, Clinton-haters on the blogs are out of control.  What I'm saying here is based on reading, conversations and analysis of information on the ground, in our party.  I can't tell you how many women said last year that they wished she hadn't announced she was running.  If it had been any other woman, it would have been in the bag.  But it wasn't.  It was Hillary Clinton.  

    The real question IMO is what we're going to do now.  Let the party split destroy us, or move on to win the GE and take back our country.  We don't need unity as much as we need alignment and cooperation.  

    [ Parent ]

    Parroting despicable RW bullksh!t (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    while denying you are doing it is really lame.  Do you think you'll fool anyone here?  

    [ Parent ]
    Only 18 million people voted for Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    including a few old time female Democrats who put her over the top more than once AFAIR.

    Would another woman Dem candidate have doubled or tripled the number of votes HC received? Devoted Obamafans who are experts in the faux hope department may believe...  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, Faux Hopes (none / 0) (#172)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    There seems to be plenty of them to go around on both sides.

    I'm not quite sure what an 'old time' Dem woman is. I'm over 50. Do I qualify? Or is it some older Dem philosophic position you refer to?

    I know AA people who voted for Clinton and I, and many of my friends and family and neighbors are white women over 50, 60, 70, 80 who voted for Obama. I realize we represent exceptions that may be mere blips on the polling demographic spectrum, but there you go. Not one of the boyz or even an Obamafan. Just a sincere supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF is your deal with (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    "long-time" Democrats not wanting Hillary to be president? She got more registered Democrats than Obama to vote for her in the primary. One of her core support groups is older people. The ones who are still behind her are long-time Democrats - the party's true base.

    Those are "long-term" Democrats. I don't know who you think you're speaking for, but it's not who you think it is. Speak for yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    alignment and cooperation? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    In this "free country" of ours, we get to cast our vote for the candidate we believe is most aligned to our beliefs and would lead the country with the greatest degree of competence. We are given many months of opportunity to examine the candidate records of service to the country, various areas of judgment they have used, and the policies and platform they are promising we will see during their term.

    We have never been obligated to vote based on alignment and cooperation when we are denied the fair process of nomination and handed a candidate who wouldn't get a job as CEO of a mid-size company.

    [ Parent ]

    This: (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Nadai on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:14:36 PM EST
    If it had been any other woman, it would have been in the bag.

    is bull.  There wasn't a single other woman with the money, connections, resume, and name recognition to run a successful campaign for President, and I doubt there will be for at least a decade.

    You look at the names of other women being floated now for possible VP.  Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius - outside of their home states, how many people have even heard of any of them?  How much money have any of them been able to raise?  Any of them likely to come close to the quarter billion this campaign cost?

    Not to mention that even if one of them could do it, she'd be treated just like Clinton was.  The characteristics of a politician successful enough to have a real shot at the presidency are anathema when they're displayed by women.  He knows what he wants; she's a power-mad b!tch.  He knows what he's talking about; she's an arrogant, know-it-all b!tch.  He's got the cojones to do what it takes; she's a ruthless demon queen b!tch.  He knows how to speak to everyone; she will say anything to win.  And she's a b!tch.

    [ Parent ]

    Perfectly true. And well said. (none / 0) (#150)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:51:56 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Dispute the Notion that Clinton Lost (none / 0) (#174)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    because of the misogyny she faced. To me, this is a vile notion that ignores the strength of the candidate, the advantages she went in with and the ways that her own campaign hobbled her enough early on to give Obama a chance to get the early pledged delegate advantage, and a foothold on winning the nomination.

    There's no doubt we live in a culture that still winks at sexism and and is infected with an accepted unconscious misogyny. Clinton got royally slopped with that sewage. There's no doubt about that. Additionally, she had to contend with the ongoing vestiges of the VWRC's demonizing of her as First Lady. This primary season showed that vicious image of her endures.

    But what if she didn't contest Iowa? Or did so but with considerably fewer resources, saving them for later primaries or caucuses?

    What if she contested the caucuses Obama swept through in February? Even if she still lost every one--and it's not clear she would have if her campaign had put in some effort--she might still have cut into his massive wins here to knock out his advantage. And even if she ONLY kept his totals in the caucuses down so that they weren't double digit, she also might have cut back on that momentum meme he earned in the media in February.

    What if early on she had ignored Mark Penn's advice to keep her own personality out of the campaigning image and stick with the commander in chief/policy wonk image alone? As she later demonstrated when she let all sides of herself shine through she could be formidable. The later Hillary in the campaign was similar to the one I saw campaigning in New York for senator in 2000. In late 2007, when I first started paying attention to the race, I wondered where the heck that Hillary had gone and who the heck was sitting in her place.

    There's no doubt Clinton (or any woman) running for public office, particularly president, faces massive unfairness and an uphill climb. But Clinton proved she was more than equal to squaring off successfully against the stupidity. She's been doing it since the '90s. I really think if she had made a few strategic changes early on, she would be the nominee now. I give her credit as I would give to any candidate of having made her own mistakes. To me, that means she's human instead of blaming outside forces that were stronger than she was. I don't believe for a minute that they were.

    [ Parent ]

    So (none / 0) (#185)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    if Clinton had run a perfect campaign, she might have won.  Men, of course, make campaign mistakes all the time and still win, but what the hey.  It's not like we're holding female candidates to an unfair standard or anything, even though they face "massive unfairness and an uphill climb".  And it would be so unreasonable to blame that massive unfairness and uphill climb for any part of their losses, because if women would just be perfect, they could overcome that.  So it's their own fault, really.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, That's Some Lens (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    you look through at all this. But let's not project those ideas on me, because I don't share them.

    The perfect campaign? No.

    It's pretty clear to me that Obama gained enormously from the early fumbles of Clinton's campaign. If she had done any of ONE of those things (esp. not blowing resources in Iowa and not dismissing the strategic significance of the caucuses which is related, one decision seemed to flow out of the other event) she could have blunted his progress and maybe even gained the upper hand enough to really blow him out later.

    As for holding her to a higher standard than male candidates, that's exactly my point: I hold her to exactly the same standard.

    Was it 'fair' when a meaningless Dean exhortation at a post-Iowa loss rally got blown up into the infamous 'Dean Scream'? Absolutely not. So what happened? Dean and his campaign essentially folded up and withered away. On the other hand, time and again Clinton showed she was more than equal to staring down the sexism etc. and fighting, winning votes.

    I think it's a disservice to her strength and tenacity as a candidate to act as if but for the media bias she would have won. YOU make it sound as if her campaign was perfect if that's the case.

    I say (again) she made mistakes like any male candidate. To her credit, she worked to correct them as best she could, and did to a large extent. Unfortunately, for her, they occurred too early in the season and served to give Obama an opening.

    [ Parent ]

    The only person who said "Any woman, but (none / 0) (#90)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    Hillary" is a friend of mine who happens to be a rabid GOP.  She will vote for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    You have not given me the names of the (none / 0) (#84)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    kingmakers.  They are the people who pushed Obama forward with a resume that was paper thin so as to blunt the Clinton candidacy.  The young came out when the marketing of Obama as a rock star speaker kicked in.  They were not the kingmakers. You say Republicans  chose Hillary over Obama so as to get her as a candidate.  Nothing I have read has proved that often repeated urban myth.  On the other hand we do know all about the wildly inflated caucuse numbers and I have two friends (NV & TX) who participated in what they called goon squads of Obama activists.  Caucuses were a joke. The middle aged people who voted for Obama were the academics and people who make 150K and up. You say that the GOP would use their tired old talking points about Hillary.  Lots of GOP would buy that but they weren't going to vote for her to begin with.  It is the progressive bloggers who bought all that crap that was going to continue that meme.  Maybe the young would walk away. that has always happened, but I guarantee that had Hillary won the nomination FAIRLY she would have made Obama her VP an No the AA's would not have walked away.

    [ Parent ]
    Gesh! (none / 0) (#188)
    by angie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    Thanks so much for explaining to me how democracy = NOT counting every vote and NOT allowing people to vote! No wonder I've been so confused and annoyed at how this primary (and the RNC ruling) played out. Now I understand -- If it helps Obama it is democratic. Is that the first rule I should get Snowball to paint on the fence?
    xoxo

    [ Parent ]
    To me that blog post just reflects..... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    ...an inability by the writer to "get over" Hillary Clinton.

    I just realized that my post could be..... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    ...misinterpreted. What I mean is that the blog writer hasn't gotten over his or her addiction to obsess over any possible sign, real or imagined, that can be considered "proof" of Hillary's "voracious" ambition.

    [ Parent ]
    The sorority-style headline (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    with the exclamation point, as well as the slant of the first few paragraphs and the conclusion, support your take on this.

    In between is the more significant info/analysis for those who care about a Dem Congress: "This early fundraising, while unusual, can have the effect of scaring off any serious Republican challengers in New York."  Commenters from upstate New York tell us, after all, that the state is not solidly blue.  And anything that messes with the GOP ought to interest Dems.  But no, some are still stuck on sticking it to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    One look at the Hillary picture and one knows (none / 0) (#72)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM EST
    pretty much what follows ...

    [ Parent ]
    It's hard to fight conventional wisdom (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    Many Obama supporter's on the net believe that Clinton expected to lose the primary starting months ago and that she only continued running in order to inflict as much damage on Obama as possible, in order to prevent him from winning the general election and give herself an opening to run in 2012. It follows that she must be planning on running for President in 2012, not Senator.

    I don't think it's true. She may very well be setting herself up for a run in 2012, but even she can't know if that run will be for Senator or President. She isn't "planning" on running for President, because it's simply too early to know if Obama will win or not.

    In addition to a host of other factors, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    Hillary will be 64.  Does anyone have any illusions of what the press would do with that?

    [ Parent ]
    Reagan was 70 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    McCain is 71. Age might be a factor for a 64 year old, but I doubt it will be a disqualifier unless she seems particularly weak. I don't know about 68. A 68 year old woman would not be a great candidate, although, ironically, a 68 year old woman in good health has a much higher life expectancy than a man of the same age.

    Nonetheless, I don't think she'll have much of a shot in 8 years. If Obama is elected and he does even halfway well he'll be in that long, and the nation will then either elect his VP or want a change to Republican. If he screws up badly, we get a Repub in 4 years. If he loses, then Clinton has a shot.

    [ Parent ]

    Agesim was a big part of the (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:17:08 PM EST
    sexism in this race.  The young bloggers that I have read have betrayed their biases pretty clearly by talking about how young and vibrant Obama looks without making direct comparisons to Hillary but doing so to McCain. While Hillary looks wonderful for her age, I did see bloggers suggesting she had a face lift, some were saying that about Nancy Pelosi.  Anyway, what I am saying is there was a lot of subterranean references to age in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    I think we need to ask the next question (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    What can she do with the money once it goes to the Senate account?  If she decides to run again in 2012, can she ask the donors to transfer it back to a primary fund? Will that put donors at their limit of $2300 (or whatever it is by then)? If she puts it in a Senate account, it's going to sit there and collect interest - sounds better than giving it back. And, barring any wild crazy things happening, do you think she'll have a tough Senate race?  She was almost (and should have been) a shoo-in for the WH.  I think she handle a Republican Senate challenger.

    I believe she won her last Sen. race by (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    a pretty big margin.  I'm sure she's not the least bit worried about reelection in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    67% of the vote, iirc. (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:28:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well, (none / 0) (#142)
    by diogenes on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:51:20 PM EST
    She could ask her donors to give the money to CURRENTLY RUNNING Democratic congressional candidates or even, gasp, to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign rather than asking them to give money to her own campaign for an extremely safe senate seat in 2012.  

    [ Parent ]
    For me it's about political influence (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    It's all about helping Clinton keep and nurture her political power in the Dem party.  Without Clinton's commitment to her primary agenda and the influence to force that agenda on the Dems, I see no way that her concerns, and the concerns of her voters, are truly part of an Obama presidency.  If fundraising, paying off the debt and building a campaign war chest, contributes to that, I'm all for it whether it's for a Senate or Presidential* run in 2012.

    *Hey, I'm allowed to have my pipe dreams!

    [ Parent ]

    It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary got..... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    ...some kind of "netroots" challenger in the primaries. I think she will probably need lots of money for her next Senate campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean a challenger (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    who is a keyboard activist now, or someone supported by the 'netroots'?

    I really can't see any challenger (unless Obama loses the presidential race and tries to run against her in NY - ha ha) being able to seriously challenge Clinton in NY.  She has that job for life, if she wants it.

    The netroots aren't nearly as influential as they think they are, and they've blown a lot of their credibility this year.  Plus no caucuses in a Senate race, no DNC trying to shove her out of the race because she's not latte, young, or hip enough, and her star rose over the last half of the primaries in spite of their spitefulness.

    [ Parent ]

    HRC won her last election (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    with 67% of the vote.

    I don't think she's worried.

    However, that's no reason not to have a good warchest. As we know, it's expensive to run for Congress these days.

    If we ever get enough liberals elected to Congress, we might get some REAL campaign finance reform, like public financing ONLY for all Congressional and Presidential races. I heard a while ago on AAR that there is actually a bill in the House to that effect, but so far, it has not gotten anywhere (quelle surprise!).

    [ Parent ]

    I actually (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    read a comment on another blog a few months ago by a NYC woman who said she wanted to be on a committee that would pick a challenger to Clinton in the next election.  Frankly, I was stunned, as this person had been a Hillary supporter early on.  Suddenly, she flipped and spouted this nonsense.

    Very puzzling.

    However, I think Hillary's stature has increased because of her presidential run.  I can't imagine she'll have any trouble winning reelection.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't buy the memes (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    (or, rather, sip the kool-aid). The netroots are not typical voter's. I kept feeling that Clinton must be the most hated woman in America, based on what I read in most progressive blogs. But she kept getting votes and donations. Somehow, even toward the end, she was pulling out wins. She is more popular than it would seem.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, to the extent that the netroots (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    actually influenced this election, it was a triumph of the loudest, the most obsessed, and the least principled, and certainly not the most representative.


    [ Parent ]
    I think she changed (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    a lot of minds and pople have a much more poitive impression now.

    It's funny about that poster though.  She and another staunch Obama supporter made comments that sounded eerily similar to a poster here.

    It's like they were reading from the same notes or something.  ;)  

    [ Parent ]

    I need a new keyboard. (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    /sigh

    [ Parent ]
    I changed my mind (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    I was NOT a Clinton supporter. I liked Bill, but, as much as I liked Clinton, I didn't think she was qualified to be President. She completely changed my mind, with her knowledge of policy and tenacity.

    As for spelling - I'm not one to talk. No matter how often I re-read messages, errors pop through. Sometimes letters, but usually whole words that are wrong. I don't really understand why my brain won't see the problem, but it doesn't - and wrong words don't get picked up by spell-check.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    it is my keyboard.  I have particular trouble with the space bar and certain letters.  I have a notebook, so a new keyboard prolly isn't in the cards.

    If I'm in a hurry, I don't proofread carefully.  I usually see something after I hit post.

    Too late.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's Very Popular in New York (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    I don't see any realistic challenge against her. I would assume she'll hold her seat as long as she wants to.

    [ Parent ]
    2012 (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    I am not hoping that she'll have to run again in 2012, but with every passing day I see it as a reality.

    Yes, and she (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:03:20 PM EST
    is being the 'good little soldier'. Praising Obama, telling her supporters to vote for him. If anyone thinks that Hill and Bill aren't six steps ahead of Obama, Pelosi and the DNC - I have a bridge in New York to sell you.
    Now I would like to see her start a third party. She didn't leave the Democratic party - they left her - and Bill, too. Imagine a liberal party that actually was good for America!

    [ Parent ]
    Third parties (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:33:39 PM EST
    Third parties never do well in winner-take-all systems.  It's not like more parlimentary systems in much of Europe where they can actually win seats in the legislature (or equivalent).

    But I've been thinking lately that this year may be the beginning of sort of default third parties, with the Dem base being kicked to the curb.  Maybe it's been going on since 2004 and I only noticed now, or maybe it took a strongly FDR-dem like Hillary to reveal the cracks.

    It's not a theory I'm solid on, just starting to bat it around in my little Scandanavian brain.

    [ Parent ]

    What makes you think (5.00 / 3<