Dinner With Hillary, $5 bucks

Sen. Hillary Clinton is having a contest. For a $5.00 contribution to help her retire her campaign debt, you will be entered. The winner gets dinner with Hillary.

If you are a Democrat or were a Hillary supporter during the primaries, I hope you'll help her out.

< Open Thread: "I'm Free" | Amnesty Int'l: Weds is Protest Day for China's Internet Censorship >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I just bought 10 chances (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    The thought of actually sitting down with my new hero makes me nervous.

    The biggest thing I'd want to know is what does she think happened and why. It's apparent to me that there was a conscious decision and plan to tilt the scales for Obama.

    I would want to know why she thinks this happened and how does she feel about it.

    And she truly has inspired me to take action.
    Of course my choice for volunteering after watching the primaries is for a group that supports women. One day a week at a women's shelter.

    Honestly, no one has ever inspired me to replace my b*tchin' and moanin' with action like she has.

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    After Rahm Emmanuel's crack about Hillary's "bitter knitters", my friends and I started knitting cancer caps and donating them in Hillary's name.

    as a person who's mother (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:10:17 PM EST
    is suffering from cancer and is a recipient of one of those generously knitted caps, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.  I always wondered who those kidn thoughtful knitters were.  Now I know!

    I have also dontated to Hillary.  I was planning a donation this week anyway, but the thought of winning dinner makes it all the better.


    You are more than welcome (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
    I had to learn to knit to participate, but my girlfriend makes 5 or 6 per week.

    Wow. (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    You and your friend are fabulous.

    This is what we should be about.

    Acts of kindness.  Works for me.


    God bless you! (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    thank you for that! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:58:06 PM EST
    It's a big deal and we all have to react in our own way.  I'm inspired to do something positive.  Thanks!

    What a good idea! (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    I'll have to pass it on to my mom and sister. My sister knits for the kids in Afghanistan, and mom for mothers and their new babies through a SS group. Mom also did some cage comforters through a group here that was doing a drive to get some comfort in our city shelter cages (animals!).

    It's amazing what some bitter knitters can get done  ;) I can't knit (yet!) but I'll be donating a couple feet of hair this fall. Or sooner depending on the weather, lol!~ :)


    I'm sure that there (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:10:11 AM EST
    are a lot of people who have been inspired by Obama to get involved in their community.  It might be a nice addition to his "How I Came to Support Obama" narratives to have his supporters write "What Obama Has Inspired Me to Do" stories in the blogs on his website.

    I know that there (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    are a lot of people who have been inspired by Obama to get involved.  Many people have in fact shared their stories in that regard.  I hate that we turn everything into a contest between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters (forgetting that a lot of people are both)--I understand it, but I still hate it.

    Here. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    you should (4.60 / 10) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    send one of the knit caps to Rahm with a nice note attached.

    Wow, such compassion (1.75 / 8) (#48)
    by gamonkey on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:09:48 PM EST
    You are exactly the reason why I could never support HRC.  You condemn everyone else on earth who doesn't conform exactly to your narrow minded bigoted views.

    I have supported Obama for over a year, and I spent all day today packing meals for the elderly and infirmed.    
    I spend at least 8 hours every month giving back to my community.    But obviously, as you stated, it doesnt count because I voted for Obama.

    The love at this site is just overwhelming.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    Well, certainly there has never, ever been an Obama supporter who acted as if Obama is the only candidate who can inspire people.

    Both sides treated the other like sh*t (3.87 / 8) (#50)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:05:28 AM EST
    And did so from the get go.  Which was part of the reason I couldn't get on either bandwagon.  The hero worship of both camps turned my stomach.  Neither can walk on water, but too many of ther supporters acted like they could.  Still, both are intelligent, well spoken people, with a passion for politics, and a concern from their country that ALMOST reaches the level of progressive.  And either is miles better than any candidate the Republicans offered.  Blame the DNC, blame the media, blame whomever you want, but the fact remains, there was more animosity in this campaign within the party than we've seen since '68.  And that ain't good, since at least in '68 people took to the streets en masse.  The last anti-war rally I went to had a pathetic turnout.

    I gotta disagree (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:10:48 AM EST
    While both sides ended up playing the game, it is very, very clear to me which set of supporters started the demonization of the opponent first.  I mean, I'm surprised you even think it's debatable.

    True that. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:31:41 AM EST
    CDS existed for many years before ODS did, so it had a built in head start and pre-existing set of anti-Clinton narratives.  

    I'm not going to claim any side was more or less guilty of bad behavior, but logically the anti-Clinton bias existed before Obama even won an election.  Bill Clinton was elected(POTUS) in 1992 and Barack Obama was elected to national office in 2004(Senator).  So Hillary Clinton had 15 years of public exposure and media attention at the national level by 2007.  The consensus opinion is that the attention was not of a largely positive nature.  (Or why would people persistently refer to her "baggage"?)


    I must disagree with your subject line--I did not (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    treat Obama supporters "like sh*t." And Hillary certainly never talked about Obama while scraping something off the sole of her shoe....

    But, seriously, I do not think the Clinton campaign or many of her supporters treated either the candidate or Obama's supporters "like sh*t." However, when people did post links to informative articles about Obama's legislative history, they were often told to go die or shut up. On a nice blog where the owner did not clearly take sides!

    I am sorry you wrote such a line on this blog.


    We were told the same (none / 0) (#100)
    by gamonkey on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    Anytime anyone dared to criticize Hillary, or her policies, they were automatically called a Republican troll.  If the area of concern were even remotely close to anything that was ever said by Rush or Hannity or anyone else on the right, it was just parroting right wing points.

    yet now, people on this site are giddy with joy to parrot anything and everything that Rush says about Obama.  I think there is now more love for Rush and Hannity here than at NRO.


    gamonkey (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    you are out of here. You have insulted TalkLeft and its commenters numerous times. You are a brand new poster and ignored the new commenter limits. You are bloghogging. You are gone. Take your negativity and insults elsewhere.

    i beg to differ! (4.25 / 4) (#55)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:14 AM EST
    Both sides treated the other like sh*t

    not hardly dadler, unless you've succeeded, where so many obama supporters (or should i say, idolaters) have, in blinding yourself to reality.

    obama supporters, as individuals, groups and bloggers, were consistently derogatory towards both sen. clinton and her supporters. while some clinton supporters repaid in kind, most (at least on this site) managed to be civil, until the obama supporters just went off the deep end.

    i don't recall any clinton supporters accusing obama, or his supporters, of racism. i don't recall sen. obama, or his supporters, decry the blatant mysogony of his campaign. no, they rationalized it instead.

    i have little use for sen. obama or his "supporters". no, wait, i take that back, i have absolutely no use for them. i won't say anything bad about them, why bother? but i won't let them get away with the BS either.

    at first, my only problem with sen. obama was his obvious lack of experience; i thought he'd make a heck of a VP to clinton's pres.

    as time and the primaries went on, i realized not only does he lack actual experience, or understanding of, well, anything, he's just a republican in democrat clothing.

    sorry, the truth hurts, but there it is.


    That's (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    one reason I don't like him personally.  I don't say he's a bad person because of his political machinations, but because of his character, which seems to be absent.  I cannot think highly of a man who turns viciously on his own.  Obama supporters try to make a case that the Clintons attacked Obama, but the facts just don't bear that out, it's media hype.  Obama's campaign framed both Clintons as racists for his political gain.  No real Democrat would call a great Democratic president a racist, especially after all the things Bill Clinton did for blacks.  It's the worst sort of lie.

    .. and HRC supporters (4.25 / 4) (#83)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    call Obama's campaign sexist.

    Gosh, how long will this "but you guys started it" and "I was injured more than you" victimology continue so strongly?

    It reminds me of a few other foreign policy problems, where progress can't be made, because the two opposing parties can't get past the argument of who's the bigger victim.

    Looking forward so as to marshal energy towards beating McCain would be nice . . .

    Just saying . . . .


    gamonkey - there was no comma (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:45:19 AM EST
    If there had been a comma before the "who" then it would have meant Obama supporters in general.

    Since there was no comma the note referred to Obama supporters WHO do and/or don't do certain things.

    They were also talking about being termed or deemed "bitter knitters"  (did that bother you?) or anything else derogatory -- but most of all that I've seen, they've been called "not real Democrats" -- too often by people who've been on earth at all for half the time the 'bitter' ones had been old enough to work for and support  the Democrat nominee -- we're talking 30 to 50 years of working for the party, only to see the "newly inspired" on forums saying "You were never a Democrat then" because of a voicing of a lack of enthusiasm for voting for Obama.


    I know what you mean. Today in the SF chronicle (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    Robin Lakoff or UC Berkeley wrote a column about the Democratic Party taking women for granted after the "stolen" nomination. She wondered at the Party and why they decided to "chose" Obama. I too wonder what it was about.  In the meantime I read on another site that it is probably in the bag that Tim Kaine of VA will be the VP choice.  Aside from his lack of experience he is a strong Pro-lifer.  I can't believe the Democrats would be so tone deaf to put that person up.  It is like spitting in the face of women who have fought for these rights for decades. I am completely deflated about this.

    Use this in referring to Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    Please use "anti-choice" vs. "pro-life".  It is more accurate as otherwise it assumes those of us who support reproductive choice are labeled as somehow "anti-life."  And yes, that he would pick someone as VP with this view means he is throwing a huge number of women voters under the bus.  Wow, is it getting crowded under there!!

    Then vote for McCain (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    Understand, there is no future for this country right now.  We are the Roman Empire, with troops doing god knows what in every corner of the earth, and rarely in the interests of the American people or the nation's we occupy.  Without an end to our militarism, abortion rights will mean less than nothing.  We are on the road to utter and complete ruin, headed for a Depression of violent and unprecedented depth.  At least when the last depression hit you could actually employ people to do jobs that are either outsourced now or done by machines.

    We.  Are.  Screwed.


    You Know (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:15:55 AM EST
    I actually agree with you:

    We are on the road to utter and complete ruin, headed for a Depression of violent and unprecedented depth.
    I don't want to be right about this, but I believe the economic picture is far, far bleaker than anyone is letting on (the federal closure of two more banks was buried in the back pages of my so-called newspaper. It seems to be getting harder and harder to obtain information on various economic issues -- like what the heck is going on with the yen and dollar and what is China up to? Are we looking at the potential imminent collapse of the dollar entirely?).

    Unfortunately, the one candidate who seems to have internalized the gravity of the situation and who not only offered solutions, but also provided presumptive fiscal accountability proposals for payment of the proposed solutions, is reduced to selling dinner raffles for five bucks a ticket to pay off her campaign debt.

    I hope with all my heart that you are right about Obama. Regrettably, I find nothing in his current or previous actions, or anything he has said, that makes me believe he either understands the enormity of the coming economic collapse, or that he has solutions for preventing, minimizing, or alleviating any of its effects. I have tremendous ethical concerns about your candidate, but if I really believed he had the wherewithal to pull the country away from the brink, I would vote for him in a flash. And McCain is horrible on this issue as well. Two disastrous candidates when we need a pragmatic visionary like Roosevelt.  In short, I agree utterly with you here:

    We.  Are.  Screwed

    Let us hope that history proves us both wrong.


    I have to agree (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:25:02 AM EST
    but I believe the economic picture is far, far bleaker than anyone is letting on

    our Gov had a news conference today that they showed a bit of on the news and it wasn't good. And Bloomberg said something more than a year or so ago when we turned around the city $$$. He was socking some away for future use just in case . . . It had to be the way he said it, but I felt like he knew or saw something. Not something I would normally catch and repeat to my mom, lol!~ Of course, it could have been the simple fact he sounded responsible about the budget.


    And On a Local Level (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:45:28 AM EST
    Remember that you're moving to a state with a $15 billion structural deficit. And because the House and Senate leaders are both being termed out, nobody is even pretending to care about working on a budget -- the legislators are on vacation right now; won't be back until August 4; a balanced budget was due on June 30.

    Arnold's proposal about state workers/min wage stole the headlines -- the real story is the tens of thousands of small vendors and contractors that may go bankrupt waiting for a budget. This is not hyberbole; many small vendors go out of business each time there is a  budget crisis.

    Small entities simply can't "carry" hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for months. Talk about another looming crisis -- if we have a budget before thanksgiving it will only be because of the election in November. I don't know how the thousands of small contractors in the state can survive that long, and there is nowhere else for them to go in today's economy.


    Yeah, I remembered that when I was listening (4.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    to our Gov. Our projected deficit went up over the last couple of months along with the three year projected. I think he was releasing something today. I'll have to check around and see if I can find it.

    I totally agree with you. (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:21:13 AM EST
    I was reading something about bank failures.  The FDIC has something like $53 billion to take care of bank failures.  They are spending close to $10 billion on the Indy Mac failure but there are several large banks on the verge of failing.  What happens when the money is gone?  

    And this rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...?  

    This is all very scary.  

    Back in 2004/2005, I started reading about the dollar, the foreign exchange markets, the housing bubble, derivatives, our trade deficit, our Chinese/foreign financing, etc., and I understood that our economy could collapse if the dollar lost it's status as the reserve currency for the world or if foreign governments lost faith in our currency and our economy.  There are so many things that provide a delicate balance to the way currencies and economies works.  There are no quick fixes.  We are in an extremely bad position right now and we can't print our way out of it like we have in the past.  

    Anyway, back in 2004, I couldn't figure out what the tipping point would turn out to be because there were many things that could go wrong -- but it turned out to be subprime mortgages which caused a collapse of the credit markets.  Now we are going to watch a lot of systems in place collapse.  

    I don't believe either Obama or McCain is smart enough to get us out of this -- but I believe Obama's arrogance will create more problems than McCain's will because I don't believe McCain is arrogant.  (McCain is firm, but he can change his mind and admit he's been wrong.  Obama never admits he's wrong, plus, Obama thinks he is very, very smart -- much smarter than everyone else.  Obama isn't that smart.)

    Anyway, we are headed towards four very scary years.  


    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:44:36 AM EST
    The FDIC shut down two more banks in the last week -- First National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank, which I believe operates in Nevada and California.  This is a frightening trend -- three bank failures in as many weeks, and seven so far this year.

    I did not know how vastly the FDIC was underfunded until I read your post ... scary. Like NYCstray, I just have this nebulous bad feeling based on all the information I'm reading, and an unsettling suspicion that I'm seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

    The whole dollar-yen thing is part of it -- it is way too one-sided, as I read it.


    The FDIC is very unfunded (4.75 / 4) (#67)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:20:52 AM EST
    It works great when the economy is doing okay.  Under pressure, the FDIC is going to fail.  Someone looked up the exact wording of how fast the FDIC has to provide money to depositors and that was "as soon as possible" which could be years if the FDIC doesn't have the money.  

    Wachovia and WAMU are on the "ailing bank" list -- but so are some of the big guys.  A couple of years ago (when the subprime mess started and the credit crisis was just starting) people were speculating about Chase and some of the big banks (Citi, B of A) failing.  They all hold derivatives and many of those are based on the mortgage market.  Not only subprime but a lot of Alt A and even AAA mortgages -- all of the mortgage bonds and derivatives could be in trouble if housing continues to collapse.  There is a chart somewhere that shows resets continuing until 2012 which the majority of the them happening a couple of years from now.  (We've only been looking at the worst of the worst -- the subprime.  Investors mostly took Alt A and Option Arms and those don't really start expiring until later on in the cycle.)  

    Bear Stearns was rescued because of harm to the derivatives system.  Now Freddie and Fannie have to be rescued because of harm to the mortgage market -- but this is going to be more like a trillion dollar rescue instead of the $25 billion the Treasury said it needed.  That could cause foreign buyers to start dumping our treasuries and bonds.  

    I've been reading the economic/finance/commodities/bonds blogs for about 4 years now.  It's all so complicated that I can't say I know much more than I did when I started.  I do know our system has too much credit and everything is leveraged to the hilt.


    I Try (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    to stay abreast of econmomic issues; even subscribed the The Economist because I really want to understand the fundamentals of this complex issue.  Unfortunately, due to my schedule, I rarely get around to reading anything in depth on the subject. So, it's mostly Paul Krugman for me.  Good as he is, I feel I should understand this topic in greater depth.

    Do you mind listing some of the websites you have found informative? I remember there was an incredibly great conversation on the Guardian blog back in 2004 where some economist was writing, and making a lot of sense about the beneficial properties of the yen/dollar issue. it was one of the most fascinating and informative discussions I have ever read on the subject, but it was election time, and the British  were furious about the war and Bush, and the trolls kept going off topic to taunt this guy until he finally gave up.  I wish I had saved his repsonses, because he really seemed to know what he was talking about, and he presented his facts in a simple, coherent, and understandable way. I'd love to find a blog where that kind of interaction was encouraged.

    And thanks for the info you provided -- these are things we should all know.


    $5 from a huge number of people could (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:25:53 AM EST
    mean a lot more than a lot of money from the usual few (who have maxed out, in any event).

      It was requested after Ohio and her campaign was able to get $10 million in 24 hours when her request was so modest.

     Her biggest voting blocs are seen in exit polling as those who don't make much money and are barely getting by.  But $5 is doable.  Let's hope it works.

      As for the economy.  I agree with you.  Scary times.

      I'm worried about over-investing ourselves in Afghanistan, as is being talked-up.  Move the Iraq fighting forces  to Afghanistan (as if they were pawns on a chessboard) and thus maintain the cost of war(s) to prove ourselves in so many ways.  

      More, I'm worried about a Democratic president who might want to prove himself (or have to, because of his image) as willing 'to fight' and a Congress that will be in his pocket and fearful of saying 'no' to what he wants.  With McCain, if we have a 60% congress (and I bet we will), they'd have the strength to fight what -he- wants with warring-$.

      For me, neither choice (at this point) is very good for me.  I don't like Obama VOLUNTARILY talking about mothers suffering "mental stress" not being worthy of late-term abortions by his own thinking when they ARE worthy of it in current law.

      I don't like his always taking conservative stances and then justifying them with 'post-partisan' justifications that sound more like old-politics to me (which would be okay if he wasn't being marketed as one who is not old-politics).  And if he does pick Kaine, all the more to worry about re who Obama actually is.



    You (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:21:07 AM EST
    are right.  As a historian, I see that what rescued us from the Robber Barons is no longer available in the U. S. today.  The Gilded Age and the subsequent Great Depression came about because of a  political monopoly that unleashed unprecedented greed.  The Democrats were essentially destroyed after the Civil War because they rebelled against their own government.  Republicans ran everything for 40 yrs and finally the Democrats regrouped into the Progressive Movement.  

    Today I don't see any force like that operating in this country.  Greed is rampant and widepread, but both parties are infected with it.  I don't see any leadership to take on the corporate wealthy.  It seems unlikely that any new party could gain appreciable power, and Clinton was the last one to reign these corporatists in quite a bit.  The fact that the DNC and the D. C. Dems are determined to destroy the Clintons tells me they do not want to turn the country around.  Running a novice for the highest office in the world only makes sense if you figure that with a weak puppet president, the Old Guard Dems can continue down the path of destroying average people and grossly enriching the people at the top.


    I doubt that the people who (none / 0) (#54)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:22:38 AM EST
    benefit from the wealth in this country are willing to let the sky fall.  It might be bad, but sometimes actions do have consequences.  Perhaps the DNC will get that.

    Hrmm... (3.00 / 3) (#63)
    by phatpay on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:43:56 AM EST
    couldn't one argue that the sky is, quite literally, falling? Global warming?

    Without a progressive agenda I'm going to have to agree with the, "we are screwed", sentiment.

    I'm pulling for y'all HRC supporters from this site to win this thing. I can't justify helping out a rich person pay off a debt when I have my own to tackle. Especially when she could probably take care of most of that debt by writing a book about her campaign experience. She could probably count on selling... ohhh... around 18 million copies?

    I like (not really) how this topic just had to stray into some Obama bashing here. Just remember, that the race for the Democratic Nominee was even close is a staggering rebuke of the hubris of the Clinton campaign. You can call it stolen. You can call it dirty. You can call it misogynistic. You can call it whatever you like. It's a bunch of crap and you all know it. The nomination was hers to lose. Her campaign failed her. They underestimated the public, her opponent, the power of the internet(?!), and belonging to established power bases. Obama, and the rest, should have never even sniffed the nomination.

    Help her out. Keep supporting her and her ideals. Lord knows this country needs the Clintons. But, for the love of Mike, get over the primary. And do some actual Obama research for yourself before you condemn the guy (honest, he's not Satan incarnate). Relying on the blogosphere for all(most) of your information is not recommended. You just run into meatheads like me.


    No staggering rebuke, per the facts (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:11:21 AM EST
     Phatpay --  with 'rules' allowing modification of DNC penalties down the road, it was always possible to give Florida and Michigan's state-certified votes their due (as was done with SC and 2 other states that also moved up their dates with no penalty -- they were Obama states though).

      Counting the actual citizens who voted (with Obama removing his name from Michigan ballot for strategic reasons and leading a move to have other Dems to do the same to embarrass Clinton in Iowa -- a political decision much the same as Clinton opting not to compete in the early caucuses -- both normally would have to live with their decisions), Clinton did get more of the actual votes that took place.

      Also bear in mind that caucuses representing 3% of the total vote represented 14% of the number of delegates.  
    That's where Mark Penn failed her (and should drop his fee by a few million).  

      The problem was the way in which Obama refused to go along with Re-votes (he knew he'd be better off not paying any mind to the votes or the re-votes) and the way the DNC handled the Michigan situation in particular, handing Obama all the Uncommitted votes (against the Charter rules which forbid that kind of transfer) and also 4 that Clinton earned.

      Here is, though what could be termed a rebuke we must watch for in November - because of what happens with poll expectations and people who believe them too much, in any direction (or who believe Hillary was rejected once Obama's background of choices became better known).

      Starting with March, in the state primaries (as opposed to caucuses) which are much more like the General Election method of voting, Obama did often poll well and it was said his registration drives (and even his Democrats for a Day campaigns) would keep him him ahead of Clinton in voting in the last half of the primaries.

      However, Obama did -not- win 9 of the last 15 races with HRC and, worse, he lost 3 of those 9  by 30 to 40 points AFTER he had been deemed the 'nominee' by Tim Russert and by TIME Magazine.

      In the very last primary, South Dakota, he was -ahead- by 8 points but he lost South Dakota by 10 points.  That was not noted much because Richardson told superdelegates to join Obama BEFORE the primaries ended in order to be "remembered" by him.  And, well, you know old politics.
    They moved before the polls closed that night so we wouldn't have to hear about South Dakota's surprise or about Puerto Rico's oversized voting for Clinton (a '30' margin not included above).  

      That is not indication of a 'rebuke' of Clinton.  However, those who never liked the hicks in power and prefer it for their own got behind the guy who could be molded, and I suspect the Clintons were not great on sharing power in the way others wanted, but they ran a rather prosperous 2-term administration (after even being voted in, twice, which was unusual in that 40-yr time period for Democrats).  

      So be aware that Obama will need a very large margin before Dems can remain so confident about any polling leads.
    EVERYone will be needed to win in November, especially once the nomination is actually secured and then the GOP and 527s can then go to town in the way only they can.  We haven't seen anything yet.  A strong ticket is needed, but it seems we're not going to get it.

      A candidate who runs on "unity" but is showing that he may well be unwilling to lead the harder way by paying attention to the other half of a tremendously divided constituency will have supporters who follow his lead in being unwilling to 'compromise' (they might even still write disdain about his opponent) and, as a result, others who might lean toward him with time will have doubts about his actual ability or willingness  to unify larger forces (like the country itself).

      I must say I'm distressed by the idea of Kaine, who is very pro-choice and even anti-gay from what I read.  This is a choice for a person who could become president within a heartbeat.

      Why is the "No old politics" candidate possibly choosing someone with that belief set for 2nd-slot, when he is capable of becoming a Democratic president within a heartbeat.  I hope he's just flattering him to get his support in Virginia.


    You mean Pro-Life? (none / 0) (#92)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    At least he is in favor of legal contraception.  I guess that is for the married women only?

    I'm not rebuking HRC, (none / 0) (#94)
    by phatpay on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    only her campaign.

    I think they did her a serious disservice. They had her striding the primary playing field much the way Obama conducted his recent globe trotting. Assuming a posture of President-Elect.

    You can argue the ins and outs and specifics and polling, etc. etc.
    The point is: he ran a better campaign. Not better as in higher ground, mind you. Just better. She had the money people, the polling, the experience, a veritable who's who of big shot democratic strategists on board. No one should have even entered her rear view mirror.

    When anyone starts culling together all the laments about the DNC, I think that's where you can hang the anti-Clintons backlash. No one was supposed to challenge her. Someone does and y'all are shocked that a bunch of politicians(?!) jumped ship? What boggles my mind is that there is this perception that any of these pols are somehow in line for beatification.

    Again, my only rebuke is of her campaign handlers.

    Stop telling people to get over it and do some research on Obama. We DID the research, and that's WHY we supported Hillary Clinton. That's also why we won't get over it, nor should we.

    I do find one sentence in your otherwise fact-free post I can agree with though - guess which one.


    I'm asking you to do some research to find out which candidate more clearly represents you now?
    Obama or McCain?
    I'm not asking you to forget injustices. Hell, I think the whole electoral system needs an overhaul. I'll join any cause for electoral standardization.
    I'm asking you to make the difficult choice to do what's best for your nation now.

    Look, there are parts of me that are not over 2000 or 2004. I believe, sincerely, that both of those elections were stolen. To the extreme detriment of our nation and the world.

    I have no illusions about Obama. He's a slick political animal. /shrug
    Upon research, though, he more closely represents my stances than McCain.
    Come November we have to take a bite out of a crap sandwich (once again). I'm going to take a bite out of the less disgusting one.


    Enjoy your sandwich. I won't eat sh!t. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    I've thought (none / 0) (#105)
    by phatpay on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:59:02 AM EST
    about becoming an expatriate as well.
    Where are you moving to?

    March, April, May, June 1-3 (none / 0) (#102)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    No, Obama didn't run a better campaign because in those important months he lost badly, once people knew more about him.

      He was lucky though that Mark Penn did, as I say, fail her so miserably in the February caucuses.  That 3% of the vote representing 14% of the delegates was what did it.

      That was the extent of the 'better campaign' and the second half of the primaries, her campaign was far more successful and he suffered tremendous losses that I already mentioned.  Clinton lost that first half on her own - by trusting Mark Penn far too much and not listening to her other sr staff, alas, but she and the rest of them did a fantastic job in the last 15 contests.  What happens is that Obama campaign, resting on the idea of the caucuses being the main thing (and that was so due to her not even engaging there) have built a castle on sand for the General Election where the voting is done in the way the large primaries were.  

      Again, bear in mind the polls as they were and then what happened March through early June.  His forces are going to need the rest of the Democratic party for November but I'm seeing no sign of his or their recognizing that and there lies disaster unless he is able to lead a turnaround on that.  


    Once again (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    Stop telling people to get over it and do some research on Obama. We DID the research, and that's WHY we supported Hillary Clinton. That's also why we won't get over it, nor should we.

    I do find one sentence in your otherwise fact-free post I can agree with though - guess which one.


    do you have the link to that article - would love (none / 0) (#72)
    by suzieg on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:56:10 AM EST
    to read it!

    Me too... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:30:44 AM EST
    After I donated last night, I started imagining having lunch with the strongest, best candidate this country has seen in decades.  I wondered how I would approach asking her "WHY?"  Why do they (the DLC men's club) get away with this again?  WHY does the media get off the hook for its blatant sexism?  And HOW do we get the young women duped by the American Idol mentality to wake up now?

    What I did not understand (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    if you are tapped out, can you still buy tix?

    Stellaa, if I win (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    you can be my guest.

    That would be a hoot!

    On the rare occasions I buy a lottery ticket I enjoy a few days of fantasies about what I would do with the money.  I will now enjoy a few days of imagining Dinner with Hillary and Stellaa!!!


    Hey - let's all donate and pledge (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    to take another HRC supporter as our guest.  We're all in this together!

    Excellent idea (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    Closest I've ever come to starting a movement!

    I've pledged to take Stellaaa, but I'm up for adoption myself!


    If I win...you're my adoptee!!! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    Yay - thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    Shainzona? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    May I adopt you as my guest?

    Wow...I am moved. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:02:58 PM EST
    I would come in a New York minute.  Wow.  again.

    Excellent! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:57:34 AM EST
    I'm feeling lucky! The drawing is Aug. 8th and they call the winner on the 11th.  Say tuned....we'll have some fun!

    By the way, there is a button on the page where you can enter even if yo do not contribute.


    Hi, Stellaaa. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by NYCDem11 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    I'm not sure, but I'm tapped out (for the primary) and I did contribute again. The rules at the bottom of the form state, in part:

    "By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,300 of your contribution is designated for the primary, and any additional amount up to $2,300 is designated for the general election."

    My understanding is that if we are over the $2,300 limit, the excess will roll over to the "general" pot. Since Sen. Clinton isn't likely running a general election campaign, she'll probably be asking contributors if the money earmarked for the general election may be redirected to her 2012 Senate re-election campaign.

    If I win, I'll track you down. Having read your comments throughout the primaries, you'd be a great guest at the table!


    2012 Senate campaign (none / 0) (#87)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    I've already received two requests from the Clinton campaign to roll my contributions over to the 2012 Senate campaign.  So, yes, that is what they are going to do.  You can donate more than the $2,300 limit, the excess will be a) returned to you or b) redesignated to the 2012 Senate campaign.  Just return their form or email in a timely manner, or it's automatically refunded to you.

    I contributed (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:30:44 PM EST
    except...except...I would love to adopt one you fabulous HRC supporters, but I promised my mom I'd take her if I won!

    If I win, I'll gladly give you mine because my (none / 0) (#73)
    by suzieg on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:57:44 AM EST
    husband is scheduled for back surgery and I will not be able to leave him for at least 2 months!

    I continued to give (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    her money.  Didn't end up getting the shirt, because I decided the money should just go to her.

    Five dollars is nothing.  I'll multiply it.

    Pleeeeze.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    ....don't tell me the money I sent for two shirts went to the DNC.....pleeeeeeze.

    Noooo..I hope she means she just didn't (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:16:02 PM EST
    want Hillary to have to pay for a shirt out of the proceeds.

    By the way, has anyone gotten their shirt yet?


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    what I meant.

    I haven't but (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:31:30 PM EST
    the site said 4-6 weeks, so it may be a bit.

    DNC..... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    There was a young guy downtown on a corner today when I went to check our SD pac mail and I can spot them a mile away now, whether ACORN, HRC, whatever, and was surprised that this time his shirt said DNC.  Could he have a minute of my time? he wondered.  Usually I try to chat up the younger crowd doing this but seeing DNC had a magnetic effect of repelling me.  Sorry, I said, I'm registered but I'm not happy with the DNC right now.

    Obama's marketing efforts for the convention have turned me off, too, as did all his campaign's marketin (I've got some urgencies for them) but cripes, if I could meet both Hillary and Stellaa, whatta deal!  And then maybe dinner and a movie... .  


    I'm in for 5 chances (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:55:54 PM EST
    If I were to actually win a dinner with Hillary, I'm not sure that I would be able to contribute to a conversation. I'd be awe struck.

    I think Hillary is used to drawing people out (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    You would be fine.  Besides, she can give you an extemporaneous 20 minute talk on any policy question of your choice - you probably won't get a word in edgewise!

    You are absolutely correct (none / 0) (#95)
    by maladroit on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    When I was working for her, she met with a bunch of our precinct captains - she drew everyone out, talked to all of them - they were thunderstruck only after she left!

    the whole "20 minute talk on any policy question"/ "scary smart" thing couldn't be any closer to the truth. She. Is. Brilliant.


    I know what you mean. (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    Heck, I talk for a living as a teacher.  I give talks to groups.  And I'm told by those near and dear, who love me anyway, that I sure can talk.

    But when I saw that email about a chance to do din-din with Senator Clinton, I just got this mental image of me freezing.  Or babbling.  Or both, back and forth.  I mean, I have met the woman eons ago at a gathering as she toured the country, but that was a quick grip.  And much as I admired her even then, and ever since -- seeing her hang in there and turn it around in this primary season just puts me in awe.

    So I saved the message to think about whether to buy a chance -- because I would be terrified to win!  But of course, if I could take along a best bud from TL, maybe it would work.  

    Or perhaps I would invite, tee hee, BTD.  Wouldn't it be fun to just watch two wonks wonking away?!


    With all due respect (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:30:35 PM EST
    to our resident 'wonk', she would clean his clock.

    The reactions are interesting (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    I am one of the shyest people I know - hate going to parties where I don't know anyone, often stuck for conversation, very much the introvert.  But I don't have that mental image at all when I think about having dinner with Hillary. I just picture relaxing and laughing. I guess I figure she would be so much in control I would not have to worry about anything.

    Sigh - can't we nominate her so I could relax for eight years?


    Heck, I've already started rehearsing (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:34:16 PM EST
    what I'd say.  Not that it wouldn't all fly out of my head the minute we sat down to dinner!

    Cool. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    Wasn't a supporter, but I'm in.

    If I was to win, I would know that was the (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    best spent $5 EVER...


    Wouldn't it though? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    Kind of silly, but I am really excited!

    Not silly....it would be such an honor! (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    She'd be asking how I am and my reply would be habanahabanahabana :)

    heh! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST
    Now I'm torn...if I win, I'd want to send with my adoptee and get a video tape of that!

    Ha! Yeah, me too probably (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:31:47 PM EST
    I meant it is silly because I already am as excited as if I had already won! Guess I'm feelin' lucky.

    What a great idea... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    Id love to have dinner with her.

    Coming out of lurking. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by ohmercy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    Finally signed up to comment.
    I hope this is good till the first. I have no cash until my SSI check comes.

    What I really want to do is have a couple of drinks, get a bit tipsy and laugh like hell with her.
    I just know she is a funny "broad"you can have a lot of fun with... and yeah, you know who I want to have fun making fun of! LOL Being an almost 60 year old "broad" I use that word in the best sense of the word.

    ohmercy! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:40:55 PM EST
    You can enter without contributing.  Go here:


    there's a link down bottom that says 'Click here to enter without contributing'

    Contest ends on August 7.

    Also, for anyone maxed out on the primary, it sounds like your money goes to the general, except since she's redirecting money for the ge to her Senate campaign, my guess is it would end up there.


    I may have written this before (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:22:10 PM EST
    but I met Hillary in '90 something.  She was in S Florida to campaign for her brother Hugh Rodman. When she was finished with her talk, she came down off the stage and shook every hand that wanted to meet her.

    She is not very tall; probably about 5'4 and she was
    very nice.  I had a Hillary hat on and when she shook my hand, she said "nice hat" and laughed.

    I just wanted to mention this.  Who would have thought then she would be the top candidate for the President of the United States.

    Bought 10 tickets too.  God luck everyone.

    My lazy old cat (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:05:58 PM EST
    has not contributed anything.  You would think she would be a supporter.  I think so.  

    Does this make anyone else sad? (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:11:42 AM EST
    I don't want to have dinner with her.

    I want her to lead.

    She has the mind and spine to withstand insanity. Look at the absolute tidal wave of irrational hatred she had coming at her day after day after day. From all sides.

    Even her own side. God damn she is remakable.  

    How heartbreaking that we are walking away from a rock of a woman and leader towards the latest break through brilliant branding effort.

    It does make me sad.

    She'll get another chance... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:30:24 AM EST
    In 2012 if Obama doesn't win.  ;-)

    Hear Hear (none / 0) (#96)
    by maladroit on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    I hope one of you wins (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:01:10 AM EST
    so I can live vicariously through you.

    If I were to win, we'd all have to go to Burgermaster in our van with the dogs.  I have one sick puppy dog whom I couldn't leave to go to DC, but he could go for a car ride to Burgermaster! ;-).

    If I win... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:56:42 AM EST
    I'll have a contest to see who can go in my place. I'm almost pathologically shy. Or maybe she'd settle for a phone call.

    (And I hope all goes well with the sick pup, Teresa. I know what that's like. Just lost my companion last month. When they're sick, it's like having sick kids. So my best wishes....)


    Gotta admit.... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    I'm tempted this time...I'd make Hillary curse the day she decided to have dinner with a random prole:)  

    I'd squeeze in more hard questions in one dinner than the mainstream media asks all year.  As for my guest, I'd see if my buddy locked up in the state pen could get a furlough...I'm sure he'd wanna ask why he's been in the pen for over 5 years over a little dope.

    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Emma on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    I'm sure you'd be a real pit bull.  Just remember what Det. Grace Hannadarko says:  "Act like a tough guy, get treated like a tough guy."

    Wouldn't have it any other way:).... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    She'd probably chew me up and have me as the appetizer.  I like to think I have street smarts, but she's worlds ahead in book and policy smarts...no doubt about it.

    Who knows...maybe we hit it off and end up burning one with the dishwashers in the back alley:)


    LMAO (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    THAT (none / 0) (#103)
    by sleepingdogs on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    gives me the giggles just thinking about it!  Thanks for a good belly laugh!

    T/U, Jeralyn, for the heads up. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM EST

    I ordered the Tshirts weeks ago (none / 0) (#26)
    by nellre on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    One at regular price and the contest winner one.
    Neither have arrived. I'm bummed.

    Nellre...don't despair. My guess is that (none / 0) (#28)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    they were inundated with orders.  Don't most places have a statement like "allow 6-8 weeks for delivery?  Maybe that is the case...

    Yep (none / 0) (#69)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:52:49 AM EST
    Don't worry, Nellre. They'll eventually get there. :) I think that the holdup may be the "contest winner" shirt. When I ordered mine, I noticed a "please allow six to eight weeks" clause that wasn't there when I ordered a t-shirt during the primaries.

    To avoid waste, the campaign is probably ordering the shirts in presold batches and this is slowing the process.


    5 bucks eh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    I should really put my glasses on and finish my coffee before I read and react to emails, lol!~

    Not to put a damper on this effort (none / 0) (#80)
    by eric on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    but this contest is probably illegal in Minnesota.  (and probably some other states)

    Obama had a similar offer that he had to modify because it was an illegal lottery.  LINK

    There is no requirement (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    to donate to enter the contest so it should be OK.

    Ok, I didn't see that (none / 0) (#82)
    by eric on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:57:20 AM EST
    then this is OK.  People up here in Minnesota sure are a bunch of Puritans.