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

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!!

    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.

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


    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.


    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?

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


    "Bill was..." (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    Might Lessen The Divisivness (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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.


    "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)


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    For the first year of the primary race, (2.00 / 7) (#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.


    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.


    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).



    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.



    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.


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


    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.  


    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?  

    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...  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


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


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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 ...

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    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!


    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.

    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.


    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!).


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  ;)  


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

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.


    What makes you think (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    you know the minds of Clinton supporters better than they do?

    The roll call vote is a tradition. To not allow it this time would be the final straw of final straws for many of us, and a huge insult to a good and loyal Democrat who won the votes of the most registered Democrats in the primary.

    There will be no unity, no coming together for common goals, no party alignment without the roll call vote. She earned it. She deserves it. And so do the 18 million people who voted for her. Every MALE Dem primary candidate who ever wanted to be included in a roll call vote has been accommodated, no matter how many or few delegates he had.

    You think a new direction would be more productive? How nice for you. That's not what WE want, however, and you haven't sold me.

    If you're so positive he's going to win anyway, you should have no objections to a roll call vote.

    You have things the wrong way around (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    First, your argument would be far more persuasive if you placed some of the responsibility for 'unity' on anyone in addition to Hillary.  I probably would not agree; after all, I watched the entire RBC meeting, but I would have some respect for your argument.

    Why is Hillary the only one required to act like an adult under the whole big tent?

    The Dem leadership has utterly failed and in fact barely tried to appeal to Clinton's supporters.   Unity does not mean submission and taunting.  Their entire repetoire is 'get over it', 'we don't need you' and pathologizing tripe about 'healing'.  

    Are you pestering anyone but Hillary supporters about unity?

    Second, the idea that any more Obama supporters could have CDS than already do is highly doubtful.    I think you've missed some polling here; it's not the rank and file who have doubts about Hillary.  It's voter newbies, ex-Republicans like Dkos and Arianna and their merry bands of creative class love-slaves, the MSM, and rich liberals.  The FDR wing still supports her.

    You should really just say nothing about PUMAs.  Just -- nothing.  The DNC would like nothing more than to rid the party of her and her supporters.  Why, exactly, should they 'share' the goal of disenfranchising themselves?

    Hillary has earned the right to have her name put into nomination.  It is a historic moment.  To break with longstanding tradition for her alone is just churlish on the DNC's part and indicates they're not nearly as committed to 'unity' as they claim.  Handled well, it could help Obama.

    And the nomination issue isn't just a disagreement about some trivial party process.  It's a proxy issue for how much of her 18 million supporters' concerns will be included in the platform as well as a symbol of respect for her and her supporters.  Balking at showing her that respect is on the DNC, and Obama.

    RalphB -- I give MyLeft a bit of a pass on length bc 1) she's still in the 10-comments a day limit; and 2) because most of my comments are rather un-pithy themselves.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

    You offer no evidence that (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    Hillary's numbers were inflated by Republicans.  IIRC, she generally did better in closed primaries than open ones, which directly contradicts your talking point.

    Your Republican pals and female friends are not evidence of anything, except, possibly, you hang around with a lot of people you agree with.  The plural of anecdote is not data.

    You may think your thoughts are original, but they are almost word for word what the RW has been saying about Hillary for years.  Maybe you've just internalized them and now think they're your own thoughts.

    The idea that massive numbers of women wish Hillary did not run is laughable.  She carried women almost everywhere.  

    You are stating and restating the things you wish were true as if they are facts.  That may pass muster elsewhere, but not here.  Wishing doesn't make it so.

    Again, you talking to a bunch of people (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    means nothing.  Zero, nada, zip.

    All my friends but 2 voted for Hillary.  Those 2 are under 30.  All my 'Republican associates' have expressed (grudging) admiration for her.  My 93-year-old grandfather, whose last Democratic vote was for, literally, FDR, voted for her because he thought she was gutsy and the only one of either party who could put the economy back together.

    See how it works?  For every friend you have that thinks 'x', I can match it with someone I know who thinks just the opposite.  

    Hillary is still outpolling Obama against McCain, and she suspended her campaign 6 weeks ago.

    If there are mispceptions here (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    There's a misperception that long time Democrats support Hillary because she can better represent us.

    this is a stunning example of one.

    Fact: Hillary Clinton won more votes from "long-time" Democrats than Obama did. She led him in registered Dems and every core Democratic demographic - seniors, women, Hispanics, working class - except AAs. In some states she won 80% of registered Dems. She won in closed primaries.

    You could look it up.

    But then you'd have to admit you're wrong.

    MLM---Please take your own advice (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sleepingdogs on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    I hope we can move beyond the discussion of why Hillary isn't the best choice for the party's nominee.  Because we're clearly not going to agree.  Could we at least move forward?

    You said this and then continued with more posts still arguing about why you feel Obama is the better candidate knowing others here will disagree--some vocally and vehemently. Please listen to your own advice/plea.  There is room here for thought-provoking and civil conversation.  You don't have to take bait just because it's offered to you.  He won-- Get over it.  If you want to move forward, as you claim, please stop mentioning what is in the past and cannot be changed.  Address the posts topics and deal with events in the future.  


    Some of the things you say do (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    invite bile. In your first post you say Obama seems honest and then imply Hillary is not.  Can you see how offensive that is? It is okay to want to vote for Obama because you think he may have better ideas, but to imply he is honest and she is not is not only very subjective, but completely without merit.

    driving away? please go back to (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:16:10 PM EST
    the primary season and review who has been driving who away. thanks ever so much!

    Right, you've moved on. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    You're done with the primary race.

    But you think MyLeftMind has posted valuable information here, when 90% of it is the same old Clinton Derangement Syndrome garbage we heard all through the primaries. She and the other Obama supporters just cannot let their Clinton hate go.

    Here's something that apparently requires repeating: you cannot forge an alliance with Clinton supporters by disparaging the Clintons.

    You really want to move on? Start with that. Point it out to your fellow travelers. Don't let it go unchallenged. Until you do, don't talk to me about unity.


    Yep, waldenpond (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:32:37 AM EST
    It's MLM.

    Is it ust me (none / 0) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:51:37 PM EST
    or was that myleftmind?   They sounded exactly the same.  It was just odd.

    Houston, we have a problem... (4.00 / 1) (#164)
    by suki on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:08:57 AM EST
    Unfortunately, maybe not just one.
    Seems there are other first time commentors last night who admire each other.
    I don't know how you all manage to keep up with some of this, but it sure is appreciated.

    No requirement (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:36:15 PM EST
    to support the candidate.  Commenters just can't shill for any candidates here.  There are people who have been here for a very long time.  I doubt Jeralyn will tell them to leave if the don't actively support the Dem candidate.

    There are many sites that actively support the Dem candidate.

    This is a site for 'liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news'

    The horserace is just extra.


    Talk to Jeralyn (none / 0) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    This is Jeralyn's site.  Jeralyn defines shilling.

    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM PDT

    this is the third one today. My Left Mind is becoming a chatterer and a shill for Obama. Please limit yourself to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    If you don't approve of Jeralyn's decision regarding myleftmind, maybe this isn't the site for you.


    I don't get it. Why try to change one forum (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by andrys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:19:08 AM EST
    - almost certainly the most balanced one there is - about the subject matter of the primaries and election.  I belong to many others, including Daily Kos and MyDD -- if you truly are here to find what other Obama supporters think you have a tremendous amount of groups that will show you thousands of only pro-Obama notes.

      There's no victimization of Obama supporters here, it's just that there are a lot of people who don't feel very positive about him, and he is our presumptive nominee.
    And we're not here for them to tell us to be like them, more supportive of Obama now.

      You think we should stop discussing how the party puts itself back together (Obama has a chance to show his much marketed leadership skills there and some hint of unifying abilities) when it's divided equally between these two candidates?

     If you're really interested in others' opinions, read as most of us do and then don't just post only when you want to tell us how to write and behave and be the forum you want.  

    Instead, discuss the actual points being made (and I don't mean repeating Republican talking points about Hillary).

      Take from each forum what it is best for.  


    WTF? (1.50 / 2) (#183)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    A shill for Obama. YOu mean someone supporting the democratic nominee. Also, perhaps you have forgotten in your inconsolable state that this site now supports Obama for POTUS. A chatterer is someone who repeatedly makes comments contrary to TL's position.

    And you are the moderator? Your bias is an anachronism.


    WTH? (none / 0) (#190)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    Do you ever get tired of being wrong?  I didn't list myleftmind as a shill.  Jeralyn did.  YOU don't like the way Jeralyn listed mlm, take it up with her.  YOU don't like Jeralyn calling myleftmind a chatterer, take it up with her.

    BTW, you're a little late to the conversation.  The  person that this was directed to, has been zapped.  Myleftmind didn't like the 10 comment rule applied by Jeralyn and joined again last night as middledem.  YOU missed md (middle-aged woman) expressing their effusive appreciation for everything mlm (young male) had to say.  YOU don't like that Jeralyn doesn't want people joining up twice, take it up with her.

    Inconsolable my @ss.  You are aware that I support neither candidate because every time you dump this particular comment, I correct you.  Here's my morning bash on Obama.  Oh the angst... how could I have written something so critical.  I don't know how you'll ever get over it.

    You should change your name to pileon.  You just can't resist jumping in on every criticism of a Clinton person.


    OK (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification regarding the "shil". Jeralyn can do as she pleases and it is OK with me, this is her living room, and I have total respect for her and what she has done even if I very occasionally disagree on points.

    As for you, perhaps you are helping TL out with an insurmountable task of moderating a surge of commenters but you are not TL and have assumed the position of a virtual cop here, imo. Don't expect respect from me on this just because you assumed a thankless a job. Your several thousand comments shilling for Hillary and bashing Obama suggest that you may be suffering from blindness, and are hardly impartial.

    Glad to see that you threw the democratic nominee a few crumbs. More of that please.


    This is about the millionth time (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:17:14 AM EST
    someone has show up 'new' and started demanding that we talk about issues a particular way.  Ok, maybe not the millionth.  But a spate, at least.

    It's not particularly persuasive.  As this is your first comment, I have no particular regard for your opinion.  I have no particular disregard either.  It's your first comment.

    It's increasingly hard to not believe that this is something representative about Obama supporters -- the feeling of entitlement to demand that all not only support him, but praise him in a particular way and to a particular degree.  Or entitlement, period.

    There are many, many historical precedents along these same lines, and they are not in your favor.

    No one owes you a forum arranged to your liking.  
    If you have something to say, say it.  If you agree with certain commenters, say that too.  

    The day Jeralyn decides to change the rules so that only pro-Obama comments are allowed here, I will leave and thank her for providing one of the very, very few places on the internet where Clinton-supporting comments were ever welcome, and for all her hard work in creating this remarkable space.  But I wouldn't dream of demanding that she change the rules just to suit my preferences.

    ok, I withdraw 'demanding' and insert (none / 0) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:31:35 AM EST

    The comments about entitlement still stand.

    All your posts are assuming that the commenters here do, or should, share you perspective on what is to be discussed and how it is to be discussed, and that failure to conform will result in the site becoming 'degraded'.  That is presumptuous.

    You would be far better off, if you think Obama supporters are being treated unfairly, pointing it out as it happens instead of making blanket and generalized accusations of bad behavior against only Clinton supporters.  More persuasive to me, I mean.  OMMV.  Also more persuasive if you hadn't made your first post a lecture on what's wrong with the site.

    It is dangerously close to concern trolling.  While again, OMMV, I've heard enough for a lifetime.  I have seen and heard (offline) Obama supporters who can actually make a decent case for me to support Obama -- I don't agree but they manage to do it without insulting me or pushing 'unity' on me -- but your post doesn't qualify.


    MiddleDem is MyLeftMind (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    You cannot post under two different names here. This account is being deleted, along with the comments.

    Well said, MiddleDem (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:08:21 AM EST
    Having been a lurker myself since almost the beginning of TalkLeft, I too have been recently moved to defend Obama from the shrill bashing that is still going on here after far too long.  

    I'm sure the site (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    and Jeralyn and the commenters here will appreciate your efforts to reign them in and fix them.  I myself am sick of free speech on the net.  Some people are clueless, they visit sites that meet their needs for debate.  It's much better to join a site and change it from within.

    I'm the same.... (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    ....as I was years ago when I first started enjoying TalkLeft, and I'm hoping it will recover its original flavor after Obama is elected and some bitter people here get tired of gratuitous bashing.

    We despise the falsehoods you post. (4.00 / 4) (#76)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    In addition to the boilerplate RW lies about the Clintons (tarnished legacy, scandals, dynasty, pardons, blah blah blah - all lies, and all disproven here) you also post despicable untruths about Hillary supporters (promoting McCain, spitefully attacking, screaming (how does one scream in a comments section?))

    And then you repeat the lies when faced with proof that they are lies.

    You want to be liked and respected, stop posting them.

    I haven't seen you make (4.00 / 1) (#102)
    by pie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    a convincing argument yet.

    But I keep hoping you get less weird.

    Bad move (2.00 / 4) (#104)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    Hillary should ask that the money be given to Obama.  People gave it to her assumimg it would be spent to elect the presumptive, Democratic candidate, which did not turn out to be her.

    In turn, Obama should ask his maxed-out contributors to help Hillary - as he already has.

    Wrong. I gave my money to HILLARY, for her (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    campaign use only.  I did not intend for my money to go to the annointed one.  

    Fine (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:44:20 PM EST
    Never-the-less, she should ask you to give it to Obama.  He's asking his contributors to help her.  

    Obama: Shut up and send me money (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    Tell you what - when his donors give her as much as hers have already given him, then you can ask.

    Until then, no farging way.


    Once, and with his quiet voice (none / 0) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:23:55 AM EST
    Obama seems to feel he has only a minimal obligation to ask his supporters to assist Hillary in retiring her campaign debt, while he also appears to think she has an outright obligation to get her supporters to contribute to him. I think the current numbers are an obvious display of which candidate has the stronger democratic supporters, and is the adult in this process despite the horrific way she's been treated.

    That difference in supporters is not going to work well for Obama come November, either. Explore the internet and it is pretty clear that many believe the huge donations he was bringing in were from the GOP side of politics. If those millions of new, small donation supporters truly exist, they want him to win the election, not just the nomination. So, where are they?


    Oh well... (none / 0) (#160)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:01:43 AM EST
    ...most loyal Democrats will have their money returned and send it to Obama.  Hillary will just have to pay her own way and learn to operate within a budget.  Good thing she won't be working on the federal budget.

    Hillary doesn't tell me what to do. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:19:38 AM EST
    You can't be serious. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:43:21 PM EST
    I want it back before I want it to go to Obama.

    If the donors (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Nadai on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:23:50 PM EST
    want the money to go to Obama, they can ask for it back and then give it themselves.  I certainly didn't give Clinton money so she could pass it on to Barack Obama.

    Silly me.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:04:21 AM EST
    I gave to both Hillary and Obama - just in hope of getting a good Democrat in the White House.

    But then, I don't have an emotional investment in hoping that Obama will lose.


    How nice for you (none / 0) (#187)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    I, too, was hoping to get a good Democrat in the White House.  No such luck, it appears.

    Thank you...... (none / 0) (#189)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    ....for proving my point.

    Did you read upthread about (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:02:40 PM EST
    how the O supporters gave Hillary 80k so far and Hillary supporters have given the O campaign around 540k? That should tell you something. The way that Obama won the nomination should tell you even more. Read what Craig Crawford said about a roll call. I posted it in this thread. You people are something else.

    I don't use RW taking points. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    And insulting me is against the rules here.  Oh, that's right, you're a Hillary supporter, my bad, you get to make fun of my name.

    Many long time Dems felt they couldn't trust the Clintons.  Many of us were appalled that not only did Bill disgrace the country, he wasn't man enough to stand up and tell the truth.  He was the leader of the free world, the most important man in the country, and he looked us right in the eye and lied about getting his... well I won't go on.  The fact is, most Dems don't care about the private life of Bill Clinton, but we do care that he handed the Republicans a bunch of "get into office free" cards.  He made our country and our party look bad, and if he had at least said, "It's none of your business who I have sex with," his legacy would have stayed.  If Hillary had never run for president, it would have all remained history.  Instead, it's in our faces once again.  

    On top of that we now also have Hillary's mistakes during the primary that ad to distrust.  As far as the pardons go, they're not debunked.  Just because there's no way to indict Bill Clinton doesn't mean he didn't buy votes and trade pardons for money.  Wiki:

    On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.

    Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation, but later withdrew her support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than three weeks after clemency was offered. Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.  President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

    In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction.

    In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.

    Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion... Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign.

    [and much more, emphasis mine]

    Echinopsia, you say,. "You want to stay mired in the primary conflict and saddle Obama with a permanent taint of illegitimacy - plus lose a potential few million Democrats -  just keep insisting on no roll call vote. That'll do it."

    We've already lost those few million Hillary supporters.  I'm not mired in the primary, I've moved on to the GE.  Are you saying that if roll call occurs, and the party still votes for Obama as the nominee, that Hillary supporters will forgive the DNC tactics?  I don't think so.  No matter what, if Hillary is not the nominee, you will still say Obama's nomination is illegitimate.  And many of you will help elect McCain.    

    Please see my other post in this thread for a better solution than staying stuck in the party split.

    How convenient (and dishonest) of you (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    You left out the first lines:

    President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for some pardons and other acts of executive clemency;[1] collectively, this controversy has sometimes been called Pardongate in the press.[2] Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardons. She was later replaced by James Comey. Comey found no grounds to indict Clinton.

    I understand they have pills for CDS these days. Seek help.


    thanks for the link. I had forgotten how (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    that turned out and there seem to be so many "I am so mad at Clinton for Monica" people out there who can dredge up this stuff whether it is true or not.  For example the myth that the GOP crossed over for Clinton and inflated her numbers. Rush said so, it must be true.

    Dem for Day (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by CHDmom on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    What about all the Dem for a dey republicans that Obama knew would not vote for him in the GE, or he would not have said they could go back to their party?
     As for many Dems that voted for Obama in the earlier primaries & caucuses, that were before the Wright and Ayers info came out, I wonder IF they will vote for him now. Many people that I talked to in my state (NJ) that voted for Obama, said IF they as much about Obama then as they did in March, they would have voted for someone else.
    And that was event before Obama flipped on FISA, Public Financing ect.

    One question (none / 0) (#153)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:23:14 AM EST
    How do you feel about JFK? Cuz I sure dont see all this hatred directed at him about his sexual romps in the White House.

    The question is whether she can get away (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    with transferring the GE money to her Senate account, and then turning that money around again to pay off her primary debts. Somehow I think the FEC won't let her do that.

    The impresssion I have gotten (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    What I've consistently heard from the Clinton campaign, surrogates, and others in contact with the campaign is that NONE of that GE money can or will go to pay off primary debts.

    So, I don't think that is a question.  The campaign has said it can't do that and doesn't intend to try and do it.


    i read somewhere (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    that it might be legal (possibly) to transfer the primary debts to her next senate campaign and that would let her use the money transferred to her senate campaign be used to pay the debts.  But, there were two completely different opinions on whether this would pass muster legally.  it depended on who you asked....

    Yes, I've heard that, too (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    I've heard about that possibility.

    I've also consistently heard that Clinton's lawyers don't think it's legal and the Clinton campaign isn't going to pursue it.


    Haven't heard anyting about her trying that (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    No one knows until the filings are in on July 20, but the reports circulating are that she's raised at least 6 million, and maybe more, to her debt already.

    She's said all along that she's not asking people to raise money against her loan to her campaign.  Which puts her debt in the 10 mil range.  She could very well raise enough to wipe out most if not all of her non-loan debt by August.

    I've been watching her money raising situation and while I dont know anything more than anyone else, I haven't heard or read anything, not even from the remaining CDS gang within the Obama campaign, that she's trying to move funds from her Senate fund to her primary debt.

    You may not have meant to imply that Clinton is trying to game the FEC rules, but in any case there's nothing to indicate that whatsoever as far as I've seen.


    She may well raise enough (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:55:53 AM EST
    to pay back the vendors. If she does, good for her. As to "gaming the system," well, I would try if I were her. I'm certainly not going to hold it against her. She has to work within the limits of what she can do, and there are no bonus points in politics.

    As to "gaming the system," (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    This system was built to be gamed.  To expect any less is ignorant at best.

    Thanks for calling me ignorant (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM EST
    Makes my day.

    First off, the rules have changed in ways to make is less easy to move money among campaigns.  Second, there's a huge public appearance factor to consider.

    There's still an unfortunately large number of people who feel having Obama pay off any part of her is a crime worse than... well, I can't think of any crimes worse than what they think hers is.  And those mentioned downthread who beleive HRC only stayed in the race past February to hurt Obama.

    She won't do anything that could look like gaming the system.  Unfortunately, because of the massive political naivete of folks whose mouths are bigger than their brains, she's Caesar's wife now.  She's not allowed to act like an average pol, or even an above average one.


    This has been discussed (none / 0) (#30)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    as an option since she suspended her campaign and probably even before as her debt was a hot topic toward the end of the primaries.  

    See this from the AP on May 13 for one example.  


    She can't. Period. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    She would run up against the $2,3000 contribution limit. She could ask people who had contributed a total of less than $2,300 to her primary fund and some money to her GE fund if they would agree to her transferring money, but you can't just take money from "A" and put it in "B". If she could do that, she wouldn't have to ask permission to transfer GE funds into her 2012 Senate account.

    I'm willing to bet that even if she did end up running for President in 2012 she wouldn't try to transfer the money to her Presidential campaign. She would be better off simply asking for more money for that campaign and using the Senate account to promote herself in New York and to provide money to other outfits without strict campaign contribution limits.


    With donor permission, (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by seeker on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    she can transfer it to the Senate fund, but not to the debt.  With the same permission, which they include on the permission form, they can then transfer it from the Senate fund to a 2012 Pres. fund.  She transferred $$ from her Senate fund to her Pres fund in 2007.

    I think she is keeping her options open.  I would expect nothing to go to the DNC as an organization.  I would expect contributions from a reconstituted "leadership fund" (won't bore you with that, but it's called HillPac) to go to individual candidates.


    Also, (none / 0) (#56)
    by seeker on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    "HillaryClinton.com" is now paid for by "Friends of Hillary Clinton", her Senate campaign.  That may mean that new contributions to the site go to the Senate campaign.  There are debt-pay-off links around that go to a site "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President".

    Looks like different contributions are going to BOTH campaigns right now.  

    Can anyone make sense of that?


    Only those of us who have not (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    maxed out in contributing to her primary campaign fund can help pay down her debt. People who have maxed out can still contribute to her next senate campaign. The two funds need to be separate legally. It's a shame that more Obama donors who have maxed out to him do not understand that a contribution to her debt will likely trigger a contribution to him from one of her maxed out donors who would like to be able to contribute to her but can't. It's just a matter of days before her people will have paid off her debt, and the opportunity for Obama to tap into this source will be gone. It was short-sighted on their part.

    Pathetic and foolish (none / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    You have less to say than just about anyone on this blog, but you use a lot of words to do it.  Get over yourself and get a life.

    Do you read what you write? (none / 0) (#97)
    by suki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    You repeat yourself over and over again.
    You complain about your 'supression' here and your 'limited' account ad nauseam.
    It's tiring and insulting to this site, IMO.

    Stop making sh!t up. (none / 0) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    And the result is that my account is limited

    Your posts are limited because you're new, and because you post essays and articles.

    The moderators have told you this several times.

    Let's see, what's worse? (none / 0) (#99)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    Repeating (ad naseum) despicable RW lies about the only two-term Democratic president since FDR and a loyal and respected Demcoratic senator, or speculating on what a vote for McCain would mean?

    From a "long-time Democrat" perspective?

    You don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    Jeralyn stated being listed as a chatterer is permanent.   10 comments per 24 hours.

    Regarding 'puma'  It is something I delete as it is not allowed here.  The last 10 times puma has been mentioned?  7 of them were by you.  The other 3 were by those responding to you (2 telling you not to discuss it).  BTW, you are discussing puma again.

    If you are "sorry for the long post" (none / 0) (#108)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    then why did you post it?  It's just a rehash of all the other stuff you've been saying.  Get some facts to support your opinions and maybe you'll be taken seriously.  Also, keep it short and simple and quit taking up bandwidth.

    Do you read what you write? (none / 0) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    I don't complain about this site, I simply pointed out that the rules are not applied to Hillary supporters, but instead used to shut down Obama supporters.

    This is called, by reasonable people, complaining.

    No one has asked you to shut up. We have asked you to stop making things up and to stop repeating (and repeating and repeating) the same boilerplate RW propaganda about the Clintons. Repeating once again when you've been proven wrong does not change anything, it only infuriates people. Then you look like a troll.

    As for posting too much or too little - all you had to do was read the lines you left out of that article to realize that it disproved the point you were trying to make. Cutting and pasting the rest of it was unnecessary, dishonest, and a waste of space.

    As for PUMA, you don't get to use a movement of which you are not a member to achieve your own ends. And posting your mistaken perceptions about what the movement stands for or what its members believe is just begging for someone to correct you. Thus, baiting.

    Talk about double standards (none / 0) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:22:45 PM EST
    I tend to just bypass the comments that twist Obama's words or look for any reason to prove he doesn't deserve to be president.  I know anti-Obama Democrats are out there, and their opinions are reflected in many of the posts here, but I ignore them mostly and focus on the pro-Obama arguments.  

    And then...

     For people like me, it helps to hear both sides.

    So, too bad you don't actually read both sides.

    If you skip them (none / 0) (#149)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM EST
    how do you know what they say?

    You are posting in a way that is identical to MLM. You do know that's grounds for bannination?


    I just have to reply to this statement you made (none / 0) (#155)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:48:07 AM EST
    "posts that put words in his mouth like "Shut up and send me money." I mean, really, he hasn't said anything of the sort"

    I would argue that " We don't need their bodies, we just need their checks" would pretty much qualify as
    the same thing. That is a what he said to Gov. Ed Rendell about fundraisers that were going to be out of town for the Memorial Day Week-end when Obama wished to hold a fundraiser in Pennsylvania.


    It stands for (none / 0) (#156)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:55:35 AM EST
    People United Means Action, not what you said, according to sources I looked up. Your words are slang words sometimes used because of the frustration of 18 million voters.

    FYI It was bad history (none / 0) (#157)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:00:20 AM EST
    You were rewriting history in the form you preferred ... It was false. Disagreeing with content had nothing to do with it in my case.  

    Bad history is the reason for my long post. If I disagreed I would just ignore ...

    Actually (none / 0) (#163)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:09:26 AM EST
    I didint realize that it was a __site, I was just trying to get some news out about the vote situation, No where did I promote activities of that organization.

    I was terribly amiss there, so sorry if I offended any one.

    Republicans boosted Obama's vote, openly (none / 0) (#167)
    by andrys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:35:22 AM EST
    They laughed about it on Free Republic.  

    In Texas/Ohio the Republicans playing with our primaries were encouraged by Dick Morris calling on FoxNews and O'Reilly for Republicans to please cross over and vote AGAINST Hillary.

      Re Texas, see this guide for Republicans online, that was very much posted and discussed in Free Republic and other conservative forums at the time and they were applying the idea to Ohio as well.

      Obama Campaign and Obama himself openly courted "Democrats for a Day" in Pennsylvania and Ohio and many other places.  Certainly Wisconsin though people were able, from what I remember, to cross over easily there without having to do much.

      You're pushing a myth based on not factoring the rest of this which was highly discussed at the time on forums.

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    If you, and other Obama people weren't doing this, no one would know which sites were linking with these sites.

    That article you reference could even be done here as it would, if true, involve Obama.  

    Some sites that have linked to others, have differing goals.  TL would have no issue with a site that wants to influence Obama on policy.

    You can bring these to Jeralyn's attention.  Just send her an e-mail and she will decide if they need to be deleted. I will only be deleting those items with puma in the name as searching for every term that might be associated with other groups would be too time consuming.

    Obama The Powerful (none / 0) (#176)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    What I really love about Obama's 'gaming of the red state caucus system' was the way he got Clinton to opt out of even trying to contest any of those races. Masterful.

    I'd rather support an honest loser than someone (none / 0) (#180)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:31:33 AM EST
    who "games" the system.  Masterful indeed.  In case you aren't aware, Obama won his first race by "gaming the system."  He used the system to get everyone else knocked off the ballot.  Masterful indeed.  

    Hillary Wrote Off (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    the system the way it was played and chose to complain about the existing system rather than contest the caucuses thus ceding them--and big votes--to Obama.

    Honest loser? Okay. But it seems to me a different strategy might have made an equally honest winner out of her.


    No question about strategy. My complaint is with (none / 0) (#191)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    honesty versus dishonesty; things that are right to do versus things that are questionable.  Goes to a person's character.  "Gaming" the system is dishonest even though it may be perfectly legal.  It's still devious.  And in this particular primary where we had superdelegates not voting with their constituency, changing from one candidate to the other, the backroom manipulations by the DNC, the shenanigans by the media, etc., etc., all of that stuff makes me sick.  And Obama and his campaign played along with it to their benefit.  I just believe there's something to be said about having a fair, honest election where everyone plays by all the rules in an aboveboard manner.  Sort of like when you're playing tennis, the right thing to do is to call you own balls out if they go out.  Simple decency and honesty is no longer important in this country.

    Hillary needs to be looking at (none / 0) (#178)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Senate Majority Leader or the Supreme Court.

    Obama will be President for the next eight years.