Hillary's Women

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 14:48

Let's put the Obama activist and donor numbers in perspective - 650,000 donors is a lot, but John Kerry had around 2 million donors, and George Bush had roughly as many.  Richard Viguerie and Roger Craver, direct mail gurus, have frequently noted that there are roughly 10 million political direct mail donors in this country total, though that number might have changed.  What is novel about the Obama campaign is not the number of donors but the involvement of those people in his campaign.  They are working in caucuses and volunteering, not just giving.  This has been a strategy since the beginning.

What is remarkable about the last 48 hours is the haul by the Hillary Clinton campaign of around $7 million from 45,000 online donors or so.  These are suburban women who probably haven't been part of the culture of online giving, and who for some reason have started to contribute.  The Clinton campaign has organized its online activities around streaming media, the Hillary chats and videos, the Sopranos video, and the Celine Dionne song contest.  Internally, the media heavies are probably in charge.  What happened now, though, is that the Clinton campaign just tapped out of its McAuliffe big dollar donors, and Clinton was forced to rely on her real base - the women who love her.  And unwittingly, with her showing in the Super Tuesday states and her $5 million donation to her own campaign, she asked them for support in a way she never had.  And they responded.

It's remarkable, because it is converting voters and supporters into activists and donors, only it's probably not the creative class anymore.  Clinton, like Dean, became an underdog, a real underdog, with more public support than Village support, and her public directly responded over the internet to close this gap.  

In other words, the Obama campaign has had a strategy of cultivating online donors and activists, they know how to do it, and they are very good at it.  The Clinton campaign has not done any of this particularly well because it hasn't been their strategy.  And somehow, they are at rough parity over the last 48 hours.  There is probably something of an earthquake inside the Clinton campaign when these tired Clinton operatives, cynical for 20 years, actually feel, really feel, her supporters reach out and lift them up for the first time.

Matt Stoller :: Hillary's Women

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Hillary's Women | 200 comments
let's hope (4.00 / 2)
It changes the Clinton perspectives on lobbyists, net neutrality, and the like.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Indeed (4.00 / 3)
That would be awesome. This could be a game changing moment.  

[ Parent ]
Gives me a warm feeling (4.00 / 5)
Seriously, it does. I'm not being sarcastic here.

I love the idea of Clinton also being carried on a wave of grassroots, activist support. It makes me feel better about her, better about her campaign, better about the nomination contest, and better about the party. It is a very welcome development.

If Hillary Clinton is able to stay in the game through an army of grassroots activists, then that is a very, very good thing. It narrows the gap between her and Obama in terms of personal appeal, and makes me happier no matter who wins the nomination.

I do still prefer Obama, but this is great stuff.  

Re: (4.00 / 6)
This is a classic example of how a contested primary is good for the party.

Hillary never would have reached out for this grassroots support if Obama hadn't pushed her to the limit.  And if she's the nominee, she'll be glad for that connection to the grassroots in the general election.

[ Parent ]
My only concern... (0.00 / 0)
...is that she still owes a great deal to the big money donors from earlier in the campaign.  It maybe weakens their control over her as a future President, but she's still partially owned by establishment money.

Of course Obama has his big donors out there too, but he built his campaign around the small donor revolution and at the end of the day that's who he will ultimately owe his Presidency to.

[ Parent ]
Nobody owns Hillary (4.00 / 3)
She's in it for herself. Once she realizes the real base of her success is her activist grassroots supporters her DLC corporate supporters will get a lot less attention from her.

[ Parent ]
Ummmm... yes! (0.00 / 0)

The 100,000,000 dollars raised from lobbyists doesn't go away because 50,000 people gave 7 million.

The difference is that 90% of Obama's money comes from individuals who gave $100 or less...

[ Parent ]
This is not close to true (4.00 / 4)
"The difference is that 90% of Obama's money comes from individuals who gave $100 or less..."

Obama has a great donor base, but do some research on his FEC filings and you will see that you are way off here.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Apologies (0.00 / 0)
Didn't realize you'd beaten me to it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
68% of his donors gave $1000 or more (0.00 / 0)
not that there's anything wrong with that.

[ Parent ]
Not exactly. (0.00 / 0)
68% of his money comes from large donations, but I assure you that most of his donors gave considerably less than that.  Ditto for Hillary.

[ Parent ]
Um... (4.00 / 1)
I'll probably vote for Obama, but I just can't tolerate liars.  32% of Obama's money came from people who donated less than $200. 33% of it came from donors who maxed out. He may be the better candidate, but he's not "our" candidate.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Here's the source (0.00 / 0)

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I should have put it this way: (4.00 / 1)
90% of Obama's donors contributed $100 or less.


Thanks for clarifying.

[ Parent ]
it's a frequent misstatement (4.00 / 2)
90+% of his donors are of $100 or less.

[ Parent ]
Here's some stuff to look at: (0.00 / 0)
Opensecrets.org -- Donor Demographics:

Also... Hillary is up to her eyeballs in lobbyists money == and regardless what anyone says they 'won't' go away if she should becomes President... Another lie from her end.

Clinton Gets Most Lobbyist Money, McCain Most Help

"...Won't Be Swayed
New York Senator Clinton, 60, said during a Jan. 21 debate that she won't be swayed by her support from lobbyists, saying she has ``withstood the full force of corporate lobbyists'' during her failed 1993 attempt at passing universal health care legislation as first lady and during her Senate career.

``I think I'm independent and tough enough to be able to deal with anybody,'' Clinton said...

Yeah right Hillary... I believe you -- NOT -- so is that why you're still keeping your White House records secret to keep your 'experience' credentials a myth, or keeping secret your real negotiation skills and plans with the lobbyists.

DoJ Confirms: As of Jan 31, 2008, Bill Clinton Holds Key to Release Hillary Clinton's White House Records

Also... (coz my computer was acting up yesterday)... I also wanted to bring up her health plan... It's unworkable -- pandering ... pure and simple... The influx of eligible people and increased costs when they the current Federal medical plan would be astronomically -- If we can't 'expand' the size of government to cope, then who do you think will take up the slack in a DLC world?  Answer: The corporates... and please note... even on a 'small' scale the partnership of public and private ain't working:

Medicare Audits Show Problems in Private Plans

With Obama's plan it's just as as bad -- but doesn't create a huge and almightly mess from the get go -- plus the corporate power grab just might be manageable and enforceable.

I wish people would think straight on this issue, and realize why Hillary is talking up a health care plan she knows will not work.

Here's what Krugman doesn't want to get into.

On the Physicans for a National Health Program website:
Posted on December 5, 2007
The Mainstream Democratic Candidates' Proposals for Universal Health Care


[ Parent ]
Hey, if your base of support (4.00 / 3)
is working stiffs, you HAVE TO HAVE big money donors because the working stiffs can't afford more than a token donation, aren't in the habit or mindset to give money to national political campaigns-- and they're not big Internet users.

Obama's base, I think there's no argument, is more wealthy, well educated professionals, as well as, now, the African-American community across all income levels.  But it's those more affluent folks who are funding his campaign, who can afford to slap down a couple hundred dollars at a whack, and to whom he can go back for another couple hundred repeatedly when he needs it.

I can have no problem with that, but let's not delude ourselves that Obama's contributors represent "the people."  They don't, or at least nowhere near all the people.

And FWIW, I'm no "suburban woman," I'm about as rural as it gets.  And my sister, who also responded to HRC's appeal, is about as urban as it gets.

I can understand why, but boy, you folks on the Obama train consistently underestimate and misconstrue HRC's support, particularly but not exclusively from women, out here in "flyover country."

And I believe you underestimate its potential power in a general election, as well.

The fact that Hillary was able to raise such a substantial amount of money so quickly at this particular point in time should tell you how strong and how passionate her support is out here, even if it's not as visible on the blogs as Obama's is.

Just sayin'.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
...The fact that Hillary was able to raise such a substantial amount of money so quickly at this particular point in time should tell you how strong and how passionate her support is out here, even if it's not as visible on the blogs as Obama's is..

To me it showed how manipulative she can be... Obama didn't play the victim card to get his money.  I don't think this type of game play is going to work in the General.  People might hold their noses to vote for her... but to expect them to give money -- that's risky.

Also, why are these woman flocking to Hillary -- ?  Maybe because of pie in the sky Health carep plan, but what if National Security issues get to be the number one issue again -- and IT COULD happen... By playing the victim card quite a few times now -- where do you think the public support will go... My bet is McCain.

[ Parent ]
Support Hilary (4.00 / 2)
Agreed. Obama has created a powerful money raising machine, to his credit and until now, Hilary has only raised money through traditional channels.  But that has changed.  Hilary supporters didn't realize that Hilary needed help and when they heard, even though many of them are strapped for cash, they dug deep into their pockets and donated what they could. Hilary supporters know this election is too important, and the problems facing America are too great, to allow this election to be swept away on a wave of idealism.  

We know Hilary will do everything she can to fight for the things we believe in, so we will do everything we can to support her.


[ Parent ]
Obama needs to crush her asap. (0.00 / 0)
This is a crazy and absolutely ridiculous post. It sorta reminds me of Lamont going on vacation after he 'beat' Lieberman. Obama needs to crush her asap. This is not a win-win proposition.  

[ Parent ]
What's he going to do? (4.00 / 1)
Sweep all of the primaries on Friday?  She's alive until he can split texas and win Ohio

[ Parent ]
the math (0.00 / 0)
I found this, it shows it is almost mathematically impossible for either to do this with the remaining primaries.

The Washington Post's Paul Kane: "We've done a bad job of explaining this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

"Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece. That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

"So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

"Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates. And then the super delegates decide this thing. That's the math."

[ Parent ]
Sorry (4.00 / 3)
to burst your bubble, but the fund-raising isn't at a parity.

Obama was on pace to break 30 million in Feb. - BEFORE we dropped a bomb on him.  He is still several million dollars ahead of where Clinton is this month.  

It also should be galling to you Hillary supporters that you were manipulated into donating money.  Obama didn't have to 'play broke' and let out stories about how his campaign staff was going without pay, in order to tug at people's heartstrings and get them to donate.  In fact, he didn't do ANYTHING at all.  Just went about his business and people gave KNOWING that he already had a big money advantage.

It's really par for the course for her entire campaign; crying at strategic times, talking about how the 'awful mean menfolk' are giving her a hard time, calling Obama the establishment candidate and front-runner... it's all politics all the time.  At first I was surprised that none of her online supporters seemed to mind that she pulled this stunt, but then I remembered that most of you don't care what she has to do to win.  Only that she wins.  It doesn't matter if Bill makes racial statements, or she files lawsuits to shut down polling places.  Doesn't matter that Bill's money which she injected into the campaign may have come from some pretty shady sources.

I would be afraid of Obama as well, if I were you.  He's not just fighting to win the presidency, he's fighting to get rid of the entire mentality that drives the Republican party - and half the Dem. party as well.  The DLC has been called Republican Lite for a long time for a reason.

If she can keep up the pace of fund raising over the rest of the month, then talk.  Until then, the money game isn't anywhere near parity.

Oh for crying out loud (4.00 / 11)
Matt said rough parity over the last 48 hours, not overall or during February.

Relax. Not everything is Obama vs. Clinton. If Clinton is learning to do something good from past grassroots campaigns, or has been forced to do something good because of the Obama campaign, that is a good thing.

This is the sort of thing that can cause the mentality you describe to crumble no matter who wins the nomination. Support like this, when you need it the most, is hard to turn away from. If you want to get rid of the DLC mentality you hate so much, then cheer on a moment when that can be happening.  

[ Parent ]
I sure hope you're right (0.00 / 0)
about this. I'll believe it when I see it. One hopes that HRC can learn from grassroots campaigns, but this doesn't seem to be her modus operandi. And the forces that led to the Republican-Lite position don't seem amenable to popular influence. Quite the opposite.

[ Parent ]
One thing I know for sure (4.00 / 4)
Is that the portrayal of Clinton as absolutely Republican-lite, and Obama as the destroyer of the DLC, is definitely overstating the case.  The might be a kernal of truth to it, but it is also hyperbole.

And, hopefully, this new development will close the gap even further. In my mind, the ideal situation is when both candidates equally rock.  

[ Parent ]
Well, (4.00 / 1)
You're right that there is a little hyperbole involved.

My grandfather once told me, 'there's no such thing as a strong tree with rotten roots.'  If you have to pull stunts like pretending that you are in financial trouble in order to raise money, it's not honest.  She would be better served to be straight-up with people, but that's not her style so much.

[ Parent ]
You think she was lying? (4.00 / 3)
You really think that she just spent half of her personal fortune to "trick" her supporters into thinking that she needed money? I don't know, man. That is such a low opinion of Hillary Clinton, it reminds me of the schemes right-wingers attribute to the Clinton's.

If she loaned her campaign $5M, then she must have been in real financial trouble.  

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
I thought I would do a little research and see what I could find, and stumbled across this gem:


Extensively researched and cross-tabbed with projections of her money and burn rate.

I don't think that she loaned the money - which is a lot less then half of her fortune, given that Bill got paid 20 million dollars just the other day - out of an elaborate ruse or anything like that.  But I do believe that they decided that releasing that information would provoke an emotional response from the women who make up the majority of her base.  Call it, as the diarist above does, the best possible political response to a bad situation.

I do believe the 'top staffers going without pay' leak was pure calculation.  Seeing as the very next day it was revealed that whoever was going without pay was now getting paid again...

[ Parent ]
Didn't realize they were worth so much (4.00 / 2)
But anyway, I also don't think loaning the money was designed to raise more. She actually made the loan a couple weeks ago. If it was something she was proud of, or meant as anything except the campaign needing more money, I think she would have announced it the day it happened. If anything, I think she was ashamed of it, because she hid it so long. Kerry and Romney never hid their personal donations, for example.  

[ Parent ]
Clintons worth (0.00 / 0)
is declared at $10-$50 million, IIRC. But we don't know how much within that range.

[ Parent ]
DKOS and credibility in research... (4.00 / 2)
Make us laugh.  The new good old boy network.  

[ Parent ]
"short term" cash flow crisis (0.00 / 0)
This discussion of real financial trouble really is too much.  Look, I can accept that team Hilary disclosed this with some political intent, but I think it was just a short term cash flow thing, and with burn rates like hers, it is not that big of a deal, and I do not see devious signs. (nice to have a spare 5 million though - jealous, just a wee bit)

That she did it is not the story, it's that when it became known, (with whatever political intent you wish to paint it with), her citizen backers responded, and there, I agree with you (Chris) that it is kind of a cool thing.  

[ Parent ]
Yep... (0.00 / 0)
Even if don't go for the 'trick' argument -- What does it say about her campaign strategy... campaign management -- for her financial situation (possibly) to get that bad in the first place...?

We don't have to be a right-winger to know when something smells bad.

[ Parent ]
Very True (0.00 / 0)
Our candidates in general need to take Obama's approach and use it in all races.  

She has done well.  The question becomes can she maintain.  I would still be willing to bet that Obama has at least a $10 mill advantage right now.  

The other interesting thing Obama is doing I noticed last night... there is a place on the form to set up recurring monthly donations.  Smart smart smart.

[ Parent ]
Recurring monthly donations (0.00 / 0)
Clinton does that too, as do many politicians at that level.

[ Parent ]
Oh give me a break (4.00 / 2)
HRC was in a downward spiral coming out of Super Tuesday. Barack's donations were coming fast and furious. The headlines read Bill n Hill lend campaign $5 Million...Staffers will work without pay.

In order to survive HRC played the pity card due to the fact that she had exhausted her donor base. This wasn't a sincere reach out to the grassroots, this was done in desperation.

If not NOW, when?

[ Parent ]
Sorry, no. (4.00 / 4)
I made my donation yesterday morning, because she was gaining support over the weekend and survived the cresting of the Obama wave on Tuesday.  After Tuesday night's numbers out of California I saw she was still in this thing.  I didn't hear the story about her giving her own money until later in the day.  I'm sure I was not the only one.

But in any event, you don't get money if you don't ask for it. Obama has been asking a long time.

[ Parent ]
Why is it good? (0.00 / 0)
...when many of us who are more cyncial == and have watched this politcian over the years -- see it as desperate and contrived.

...She's had months to reach out to the grassroots, but instead she chose to belittle and shun them... And then all of a suddan -- poof -- she sees Obama getting all the media attention and interest from the voters and she can't wait to get all over us... Yuck...

Errr... we're not all suckers...  and the DLC is still very much alive and kicking (unfortuantely) and she's one of their Leaders for goodness sakes...

This flip flop over of the grassroots and grapping the emotion vote isn't good for business, isn't good for the General -- overall... imho.

[ Parent ]
The DLC has been called Republican Lite for a long time for a reason. (0.00 / 0)
and, like other republicans, power will have to be gingerly pried from their fingers. It won't be surrendered simply by asking nicely.

[ Parent ]
Really? Manipulated? (0.00 / 0)
How about the email that Plouffe sent out saying how Bill and Hillary Clinton gave $5 million to their campaign?  That's manipulative.  

And I don't have a dog in this hunt yet.  

[ Parent ]
from abc (0.00 / 0)
One longtime Democratic consultant not affiliated with any campaign wondered if perhaps the whole thing wasn't a big stunt to garner media attention and look like an "underdog."

   "I'd take this revelation as a sign that they planned this whole thing," the consultant said.    

[ Parent ]
What an ugly comment (4.00 / 1)
And btw, care to back up that remark about "Bill's money" coming from shady sources?  I dare you.

[ Parent ]
A question (4.00 / 1)
Could you give me a link for the 7 million that Clinton has raised in the last 48 hours? I had not seen that figure. Thanks

It is the top headline on her website (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
The headline (0.00 / 0)
Seems to imply that this is the goal, not the total amount raised.

[ Parent ]
Their goal is $7 million in 72 hours, Obama did this in just over 24 (0.00 / 0)
Still, it's a good development that Clinton is getting small donations.  Personally, I thought she's had her head in the sand by not embracing this much sooner.

[ Parent ]
The Clinton site (0.00 / 0)

only says that 7 million in 72 hours is a "goal".  Anywhere else?

[ Parent ]
She has passed $6M (0.00 / 0)
And is close to $7M. She will probably smash that, too. $8M is possible with another day to go. Always hard to say where these viral things end up.

Obama might pass $10M by tomorrow night. This could become a coast-to-coast small donor battle. Remarkable, really. At this point, they are starting to raise money faster than John Kerry ever did.  

[ Parent ]
I think this game is a mistake for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Or maybe they did not intend it to be a game, but its become one. I don't know, Hillary is between a Rock and going 18 and 1. Clearly she needs some money, she's getting obliterated in the fundraising competition, so she had to make a media event of her fundraising. I'm just kind of thinking it out loud here, my point is, she can't win in a competition with Barack on this. He raised $6M by midnight last night without even trying since the night before. I know she needs to go high profile on this to get her supporters fired up and emptying their bank accounts. But everyone can feel the crazy energy with the Obama campaign, and if they want to throw a "$20M in 5 days" bat up on their site, I bet they could hit it and keep going. They have that kind of energy over there. It will not look good for team Clinton to lose in a proxy fundraising competition - and lose a lot worse she will than she is going to in the delegate competition this month. I think she's set herself up for a virtual loss. but then, maybe she really had no choice and is stuck with this comparison in the press.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
here is a link (4.00 / 6)

A hoarse-voiced Terry McAullife started things off by announcing that the campaign had raised 7.5M online since the beginning of the month and 6.4 million in the last 30 hours. "That has surprised me, and I'm the ultimate optimist," he said.

I think it misguided to think that only Obama (or Ron Paul, or whoever) has supporters who A) can use the internet, B) have credit cards and C) care.  That's all they need.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
After all (4.00 / 1)
Hillary almost always has more "hard" support than Obama in the internals.  

[ Parent ]
Does anyone know (0.00 / 0)
when the campaigns have to hand over data about these claimed donations over the last 48 hours?  Are we in the period where they don't have to make that info public until March?

Really, never (0.00 / 0)
Most small donations like these can be unitemized, meaning that we never know when they came in. The only way we would know if these numbers are true from either campaign is if they itemized them all. And even then, it would be extremely difficult to pour through what would be literally tens of thousands of pages of FEC reports to demonstrate it.  

[ Parent ]
Proof is in the ________? (0.00 / 0)
They do have to report totals for time periods, though - right?  And how do we really know about the $5 million dollar loan?

Can we trust the Obama fundraising counter?  Does anyone know the tech behind that?

Here's what I'm thinking...

Was the "we're broke" admission a ploy to get people to donate and now that they've made the money they're happy?

Was the "we're broke" admission true and the play that it got in the media looked too dangerous so they are claiming to have raised $7 million overnight (which they can raise later on in the month)?

Was the "we're broke" admission true and they managed to create a netroots of donors overnight, which has magically saved the Clinton campaign from certain doom?

I feel like it was a real crisis, based on how upset Sen. Clinton looked yesterday when answering questions about the loan.  On the other hand - this abc story...


[ Parent ]
Wow. (4.00 / 6)
Sometimes a banana is just a banana.  

The cynicism that Hillary gets never ceases to amaze me.

[ Parent ]
it's a political campaign (0.00 / 0)

not cynicism.

We've really got to keep in mind that the Clintons, of all people, don't do a single thing without being fully aware of the implication.  We can't be naive about that - Sen. Clinton has spent decades in politics.  If they do something and it doesn't work well, they'll frame it as an accident or an error - when in fact it was really just a failure of maneuvering.

The same goes for any campaign, I'm not playing favorites here.

[ Parent ]
Yes it is a campaign (4.00 / 1)
Obama is not different than the Clintons in being a messaging genius. These are skillful master politicians.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at though.

Of course the Clintons are going to spin their money woes into something as positive as possible - an appeal to get money. Just like Obama is spinning Clinton's loan into an appeal to get money. This is what campaigns do. I don't understand your point.

Your previous comment indicated that you weren't sure if the Clintons were being honest about the underlying facts.  The underlying facts, regardless of spin.  People spin facts, the facts stay the same. Your questioning of the facts is kind of extraordinary cynicism.  

[ Parent ]
And I'll add (0.00 / 0)
(because I know the reaction I'm going to get)

Yes they ARE real people, but you don't give a press conference the day after Super Tuesday and not know exactly what you're going to say about everything - and know how it's going to play.

[ Parent ]
rude (0.00 / 0)
Eightfold asked legitimate questions and backed them up with a citation to an MSM article.

It's an odd juxtaposition of circumstances. I'm curious about it myself. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
I think part of the loan (4.00 / 1)
was so she could be sure the staffers would not have to go without pay.  Patty Solis Doyle, as I understand, had said she would go without pay.  I don't they expected so much money to come so fast.  The ABC piece seems to have been written after they already had a big fundraising night that made it unnecessary for any of them to go without pay.

[ Parent ]
One data point (4.00 / 1)
Fundraising tools like these often have something called 'reserve.' An administrator can use it to shunt cash raised offline into the online campaign.

A campaign do that shifting all at once or -- more likely -- over time, and create an appearance of velocity and success that encourages people watching the progress meter to give. Reserve also comes in handy when a campaign stalls short of its goal. Just reach into it, and bam! The target gets hit, and the campaign no longer has to sweat press stories and public speculation about falling short of its mark, or behind a rival.

Needless to say, I have no more information than anyone else on what's happening here. But the sequence of events did bring this to mind.


[ Parent ]
That's a reasonable tactic (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't berate anyone for doing that. But I don't think that is what we are seeing here on either side.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
I mostly agree. (4.00 / 8)
But I sent Hillary $500 yesterday.  And I'm not a female or a first time donor.  So I'm not sure the other donors are either.  Do you have a breakdown of who her donors are?  

And I think the DLC vs the netroots theme is overplayed now.  Times have changed and a lot of people who were part of the DLC are now looking to the future.  In the seven years we have been out of power a lot has changed and old labels are now inaccurate.  For example, James Carville has worked to help expand our outreach in a way that supports the 50 State Strategy.  (link)

I think the Clinton campaign is evolving in a good way.  I believe we agree on that.  I plan to help organize house parties here in AR, which she won by a wide margin.  And I also plan to reach out through the online network of Hillary supporters beyond AR.  I am really excited about these new developments.

Re: i mostly agree (4.00 / 5)
Not a breakdown, but quite a few people who comment at taylormarsh.com have mentioned that they gave for the first time yesterday and today - and a lot of them are giving more than once.

A common theme is that they simply didn't know that she needed money.  I didn't, though I had received a few emails asking for a contribution.  It was pretty soft-sell compared to what I'm used to getting.

At any rate it worked for me - I gave to a candidate for the first time since Howard Dean.

[ Parent ]
I have donated to a number of progressive candidates (4.00 / 6)
but never to Hillary as I figured she had plenty of money relative to what I can afford to donate.  After all small dollar donations go alot further in local races.  But after voting for her the other day and then hearing she was running low on money, I finally pitched in.  Obviously I'm not the only one :)

SO I guess this city woman is not one of those legendary suburban late blooming internet donors.  Geez is that patronizing or what, Matt? Obviously it's not the MSM that offer lame demographic analogies.  

[ Parent ]
Just curious (4.00 / 3)
Any data on the suburban woman theory for where these donations are coming from?

Just anecdotal: four of my friends have donated in the past 24 hours for the first time. All $50-$200. Three gay males, one 20-something single female, no suburbanites.  

Very exciting.  

I guess I'm a suburban woman now. Save me! (4.00 / 2)
See my post below for detail, but this single 40 year old, my married 42 year old sister, and my 65 year old mom and dad gave last night.  All very little bits, but something nonetheless.  My gay roomie would give, but he's on austerity budget rules at the moment.  

[ Parent ]
me too. (4.00 / 4)
I guess I'm considered a suburban women too.  guess my partner isn't going to be happy finding out that i'm not a gay male.  go figure or is that considered close enough.  I will say that my donation, of more than I could really afford, hit before the loan info was made public.  It gave me second thoughts, but damn glad of the response she's getting.  Also, shhhhh I haven't told my partner I gave a donation yet ;-)

[ Parent ]
Glad to know I'm not the only one (4.00 / 1)
Cripes, but this gets old.

Difference is, my roomie would be very happy if I woke up as a gay male, as opposed to the pushy old broad he actually lives with.  As I describe it to nosy folks, consider us like Will and Grace, but a lot less cute and a lot less witty.

Break the new to your partner gently.  He might not like being a soccer mom.  

[ Parent ]
Sounds like fun - I have a Grace too. (0.00 / 0)
Always on the lookout for a Jack and Karen.

[ Parent ]
The 3 dollar bills.... (0.00 / 0)

The gay men for Clinton is an interesting phenomenon.  The HRC has had a lot to do with that through their lobbying - but there's also been a general fondness for a while.

But when you look at her policies, she's actually not the best candidate for LGBT community.

Here's just one of the many reasons...

From KnowThyNeighbor.org

"In the email sent to KnowThyNeighbor and entitled "Hillary Fails Again," Stan Griffith states that Hillary Clinton's position is "right out of the Family Research Institute's long-term battle plan to wage war on anti-bias and diversity education and safe school programs."  Griffith goes onto say that allowing parents to "opt-out" of diversity curriculum or requiring parental consent when a child is exposed to books depicting families with gay or lesbian parents, continues to imply that something is wrong with those families and children.  "Apparently, that's okay by Hillary," Griffith says.

Though PFLAG does not endorse or oppose specific candidates, Griffith says that PFLAG does think that candidate positions should be carefully reviewed and discussed.  He "would like to be sure that folks in our community who are supporting Hillary understand just how dangerous this position is that she espouses."

[ Parent ]
I met Obama at a Gay Pride Parade (4.00 / 1)
My brother and I met Obama at the Chicago gay pride parade. We were marching for Dean in the parade. At the end of the march, there he was waiting, he shook our hands and said he was running for the Senate and would love to have some of that Dean energy on his campaign. I walked away thinking he wasn't very impressive and there was no way someone with a name that rhymed with Osama was going to get elected to anything.

[ Parent ]
That's a strange story.... (0.00 / 0)

And I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.  I would have loved an opportunity to talk to a politician who made that kind of effort...

[ Parent ]
Not supposed to mean anything (0.00 / 0)
I brought it up in the context of gays being strong on Hillary, I don't know if Hillary has ever campaigned personally at a gay pride parade.

The fact that my initial political expectations for him were so tremendously wrong was just thrown out there for amusement. I support Obama, I just didn't think my state was ready.

[ Parent ]
Yes! (4.00 / 2)
Hillary was the first First Lady to march in a Pride Parade!

That one makes me proud. :)

She has been at several, maybe all of them, in NYC since 2000.

[ Parent ]
That is awesome (0.00 / 0)
I have a sense of being used and was disappointed by Bill Clinton, and I know Hillary is running as her own person, but it does make me wary of her. I just want two good candidates that are progressive down the line. The outpouring of grassroots support for Hillary helps ease some of my concerns.    

[ Parent ]
I trust her on LGBT issues (0.00 / 0)
Neel Latimore, her gay White House press secretary and the "only man in Hillaryland" (Hillaryland = her White House staff and now her closest advisors on the campaign) has a really mushy anecdote in an Advocate article:

 Neel Lattimore, who served as press secretary to Clinton for five years when she was first lady, has similarly warm and fuzzy anecdotes to share. When he was promoted to the highly visible job, Lattimore took Clinton aside and told her he was gay, just so she would know in case any of the Clintons' numerous political foes wanted to make an issue of it. The conversation in the Map Room turned into a heart-to-heart. "I said, 'I want to be a good role model for my nieces and nephews -- there's not a lot of role models out there for gay men,' " he remembers. "I thought that was a perfectly logical thing to say. But she was like, 'Who are you running around with?' I said, 'Excuse me?' And she said, 'If you don't find some people that you consider to be role models in the next several weeks, come back to me and I'll introduce you to some.'

"That's when it was clear that she had friends who were gay," he says. "If I was struggling to find people that I could look up to, she was like, 'I'll give you a list, I'll set up some meetings. You can feel good about this.' "

There are a lot of great stories like this.  This is only one reason why she has the New York LGBT vote locked up.

[ Parent ]
this is a little meta, but (0.00 / 0)
the nesting here is crazy

[ Parent ]
and now (0.00 / 0)
it's even

[ Parent ]
3 dollar bills???? (0.00 / 0)
Not sure if I should be offended by that.  

HRC has absolutely nothing to do with my vote for the other HRC, and it has had nothing to do with the support of most of my friends.  HRC has not been lobbying in favor of Hillary, and even if they were, I wouldn't listen to them.  I, like many progressive young gays, do not respect HRC in the slightest.  

Do you know anything about LGBT politics or are you just guessing here?  

Hillary has demonstrated, through her lifetime, the largest commitment to LGBT equality of any of the major Democrats - including Edwards, who ran an extremely gay affirming campaign.  In fact, she just gave a really great seemingly impromptu statement about the problem of depression and suicide among gay teens.  

Is she perfect? Again, no. But if we're going to compare to Obama, let's discuss:
-Donnie McClurkin
the fact that Obama is not for marriage equality despite the fact that he's a member of a church that recognizes samesex marriage, is a civil rights attorney and Constitutional scholar (as a previous poster mentioned)
-his coming out against "gay marriage" in his book
his consistently equating gay rights activists with Christian fundamentalists in all of his rhetoric, the same way he equates Democrats with Republicans for all the problems in the world.  NO fighting for your rights is not the same as fighting to oppress another group of people. Let's not conflate the two, and let's not defend Christian fundamentalists.  You'll never hear Hillary equate James Dobson with Matt Foreman, just like you'll never hear Hillary assign equal blame to Democrats and Republicans for not moving the country forward.  Homophobes, like Republicans, are obstructionists to progress, and should be called out as such.

To directly answer your PFLAG assertion: yes it was a flub. (not nearly as big of a flub as supporting an ex-gay activist!!!!!), but I would LOVE to see Obama answer the same question about mandatory teaching about homosexuality to school children. That would just be wonderful.

Neither Hillary nor Barack is 100% where we need them to be, but Hillary certainly makes me feel a hell of a lot more comfortable.  Just as she has consistently made high-ranking gay staff feel comfortable since before 1992.

[ Parent ]
Damn formatting (0.00 / 0)
Please disregard strikeouts

[ Parent ]
Hillgays are a lost cause..... (0.00 / 0)

The thing is.... there's a lot more to supporting queer issues than "marching in a parade" or "gay marriage" or "condemning ex-gay activists".

In fact, I don't care about any of those.  What I do care about is real transparency in government.  What I do care about surveillance and censorship  What I do care about is that Obama had the courage to speak on MLK day, at his church about the dangers of homophobia in the black community.  That's chutzpah.

Queer politics is the politics of the other - and Hillary is a corporate candidate.  They love gay money - and dual income homes with no children - but don't care about queer politics.

"just like you'll never hear Hillary assign equal blame to Democrats and Republicans for not moving the country forward"

Well, I would assign equal blame to Dems and Repubs for not moving the country forward.  Wow.  You don't?

I guess we have some serious differences - which would be why we're backing such different candidates!  : )

[ Parent ]
The speech was nice (4.00 / 1)
but how many months of silence was it between Donnie McClurkin and the speech?  I think two maybe?


Great rhetoric, but when there was some action to be taken, he wasn't there.  Inviting McClurkin may have been an innocent mistake (although I doubt it's one HRC would have made), but the failure to do one single thing to counteract it or distance himself from it until MLK Day is really, really, really bad.

[ Parent ]
Good points (0.00 / 0)
Moreover, when the campaign tried to make up for the little incident - instead of throwing McClurkin off the tour, they decided to add an openly gay (and proud) minister to kind of offset him.  Too bad they chose a white gay minister to address the 99% black audience!!! Talk about either stupidity or purposeful sabotage.  

There are plenty of openly gay black ministers in this country who could have been on that tour and preached that homosexuality exists in the black community and should be embraced. Instead, the campaign reinforced, purposefully or not, that gay=white. And yes, this is a real problem for both the LGBT and black communities, and especially the black LGBT community, many of whom reject the labels "gay" or "lesbian" for this very reason.

Talk about a royal screw up.  

[ Parent ]
Hmmm (4.00 / 1)
"Hillgays are a lost cause."  How's that for stereotyping a group of supporters?!

I'm sorry to hear that as a progressive you don't really care about marriage equality or the very real and severe damage that the ex-gay movement is inflicting on the LGBT community.

As for assigning equal blame to Democrats and Republicans, all I can say is: Wow.  How can you read blogs like this and really believe that Democrats are equally responsible for the disaster that is the past eight years! Astonishing.

Yes, yes, this is the difference.  Wow - I am even more content with my candidate than I was before.

[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 1)
"very real and severe damage that the ex-gay movement is inflicting on the LGBT community"

Aside from them looking silly, I don't think that Exodus does anyone harm except for those duped into joining.  It's a joke.   These aren't gay issues - these are issues of the "gay culture" that is marketed and sold to people as a "lifestyle you can buy".

Martinis at the gay bar, club music, expensive lube and lesbian cruise ships are not the LGBT community, they are sources of advertising dollars.

And I would absolutely stand by the assertion that Dems and Repubs are equally to blame for the state of the nation and the last eight years.

Why did they sit there and do nothing when an election was stolen - twice?

Why did 1/2 the Dems vote for the War?  Why did they all vote for the patriot act?  I can go ON and ON...

So do you think that this is why Obama's CHANGE is what I want and why Hillary's PAST is what Clinton supporters want?  Very interesting...

[ Parent ]
You are the only joke here. (2.67 / 3)
You clearly have no understanding of the LGBT community or LGBT issues or LGBT politics, and you have severely offended me.

Exodus is not a joke. Exodus causes real and sometimes irreparable harm to the people it "treats." Many of those people are young people, some of whom were forced to attend by parents or church pastors after coming out. This "therapy" reinforces the notion that being gay is sinful and evil and otherwise undesirable. It also teaches people that being gay is changeable, which clearly is not the case (unless you want to debate me on that one too), and just leads people down the opposite path of self-acceptance. Some of these people go on to live in severe depression and clearly develop severe self-esteem issues and self-hatred. Many commit suicide after realizing that they cannot change. Others enter into marriages with unwitting or naive members of the opposite sex only to see their families torn apart years later.  It takes years to undue the damage that happens at these "therapy" sessions and camps for young people.  This is dangerous stuff.  

If you want to gain any kind of credibility in this issue whatsoever, I suggest you familiarize with the work of Wayne Besen and a few of the organizations that monitor the ex-gay movement.

I have no idea where you come in talking about cruises, clubs, and "expensive lube." Are you gay?

If you are, I would suggest you educate yourself a little bit. If not, I would respectfully ask you to STFU.

[ Parent ]
Anyway.... (0.00 / 0)

Right, like I said before, the HRC - Besen is a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign...

The point is - queer politics are not addressed by Sen. Clinton.  They are addressed by the policies of Sen. Obama.

Here's a resource from the University where I work - perhaps we're talking about different issues, and that's ok.  But this will introduce you to the way I'm looking at it:


[ Parent ]
Again (0.00 / 0)
Did you bother to look up his work or what he does, or were you too consumed with your quest to associate him with Hillary Clinton?

He does meaningful work within the LGBT community. But that wasn't the point. The point is that ex-gay therapy, which you so casually dismissed, does serious harm. Don't believe someone because years ago they worked for the Human Rights Campaign, which you view as pro-Clinton, fine. Believe the American Psychological Association then.

That link shows me nothing. Good for you - you work at a place that has an LGBT center. You clearly do not have even a cursory understanding of LGBT issues.

This isn't about Obama vs. Clinton. Not everything is.  

[ Parent ]
The APA? (0.00 / 0)

Are you kidding?  You're citing the APA?

Oh my.  Clearly time to drop this one.

[ Parent ]
Look (0.00 / 0)
I don't know what you're problem with the APA is. But I don't care. Instead of trying to find problems with whoever I cite, why don't you do some of your own research into the issue.

I don't have to cite anyone. This is about actual human beings who have undergone significant pain as a result of this treatment. Some have killed themselves.

Again, this is not about Obama vs. Clinton. Please move on.

Yeah totally time to drop this one. You are not reasonable.

[ Parent ]
Clinton finally made the ask (4.00 / 5)
I don't ever recall her campaign doing that but I'm not on any of her mailing lists.

Emily's List also sent out an appeal on her behalf, using Chris Matthews' misogyny to help raise money:

We've seen how far pundits like Chris Matthews will go to define Hillary on their terms. We've fought back against the gender stereotypes that keep popping up again and again.

But it's not going to stop just because we want it to. The only way Hillary can talk to voters unfiltered is if she has enough money to deliver her message of change straight to the grassroots.

Melissa McEwen sums up the increasing feminist support for Hillary's campaign:

Every time she mentions being a woman, mentions being a mother, mentions being a daughter, mentions being a wife, or even makes any oblique reference to running a historical campaign or being the first woman to do something (like win a presidential primary), she is accused of playing the gender card. She is diminished, ridiculed, criticized, and dismissed using dog whistles, slurs, graphics, and bluntly misogynist commentary. When her womanness is the weapon most used against her, is it any wonder that women who support her may be hesitant to scream it from the rooftops, reluctant to stand behind her in large numbers, lest we undermine her? When womanness is hated, it will inevitably make women feel like a liability.

That's what women are responding to.

New donor without knowing the hoopla (4.00 / 4)
Here's a bit of anecdotal nonsense. I've never donated to a political campaign, yet I sent a little Hillary's way after Iowa and New Hampshire.  Last night my 65 year old mother, after consulting with my dad, sent some money in the same direction. First time she/they had ever contributed to a campaign.  I sent a little bit today, as I had already planned to do.  This was all before I heard about any supposed or real financial difficulties for the campaign or about the 48 hour goal. It just seemed time to put my money where my mouth was.  After many, many years my parents felt the same thing at the same time. My sister has also joined the band wagon.

I guess that I along with my sister, mom, oh, and dad are "Hillary's women."

"for some reason"??? (4.00 / 12)
Are you genuinely clueless as to why so many women are mobilizing on her behalf?  I appreciate the general wonkish-ness of this site but this and your last post about "Obama's Activists," with its casual aside about how Clinton is handicapped by media bias, have really ticked me off.

Women are rallying around HRC because we're so bleeping tired of the misogyny, and the disproportionate bias, and the constant negativity of all the reports surrounding her.  As a blogger at Too Sense wrote, the attacks on her are attacks on us, as women.  As Melissa wrote at Shakesville, she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.  And in the last 24-48 hours women are standing up and saying they are not ashamed, but damn proud to support such an amazing candidate for President.  


"for some reason..."

Of course.... (4.00 / 2)

....you can rally around any candidate you would like - but a  politician who happens to be a woman isn't any more likely to promote a stronger feminist agenda.

In fact, I think you can easily argue that Hillary's war vote was misogynistic - War disproportionally affects women and children.

That would by why this group of 100 prominent feminists here in NYC (disclaimer: some of whom are friends) spoke out against Hillary and in favor of Obama:


[ Parent ]
of course, i can't speak for all women... (4.00 / 3)
...as neither can Matt, apparently.

However, I'm associating the groundswell he's seeing with a concurrent, new topic in the blogosphere, that of women "coming out of the closet" in support of HRC, largely because of their fatigue and anger with the sexism I just described.

[ Parent ]
100 Feminists (4.00 / 4)
Thanks for the reference to the 100 feminists but women fought for their own choices even in voting.   We choose who we support.  
For inspiration I go to poets, for running the government I go to experienced politicians.  

You guys are really desperate, particularly the negative tone that your "Transformer" has take these last few days.  

[ Parent ]
ok (0.00 / 0)
Poets?  What do you mean?
That list includes the foremost feminist academics... And if you want the advice of Experienced politicians, all the most experienced democratic politicians have endorsed Obama...

Negative tone?  Name an example.

[ Parent ]
Interesting. (4.00 / 1)

"All the most experienced democratic politicians have endorsed Obama..."

You are either a huge fan of hyperbole or grossly misinformed. I suspect the latter:


[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
You just said you trusted politicians - do you trust Kennedy and Leahy - or do they not count?

And what about an example of the 'negativity' you claimed?

[ Parent ]
Bizarre (0.00 / 0)
Is that supposed to be a straw man argument?  

[ Parent ]
Hillary (4.00 / 2)
The old white men's club has endorsed Obama.  

I am not looking for advice, I just want them to do their job and leave my spiritual self to me.  

Foremost feminist academics can enjoy their academia.  But please, they don't speak for reality based women.  

[ Parent ]
"reality based women"? (0.00 / 0)

wow, is that like the "reality based community"?

And I thought it was funny when I heard a clinton campaign spokesperson refer to her efforts as "the surge".

[ Parent ]
For some reason (4.00 / 3)
It seems that this site could use a woman's perspective.

[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 2)
I have been here awhile and I am a women.  And I have a perspective.  Are you assuming all the commentors are male?  Or are you just implying that all Obama supporters are male?  Either way, stick around.  Its a good site that doesn't tolerate a lot of insults and bullshit.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
I meant front-page perspective. I know it's a good site; I've been here since the beginning. Just usually don't have much time to comment. Today is obviously an exception to that.

[ Parent ]
agreed (4.00 / 4)
I have given a couple small contributions but haven't really stretched, until today to give more.  More importantly, many of us are asking our friends and family - who have just voted for her and are invested - to give to make sure their vote is not lost because she doesn't have cash to get across the finish line.  And many of them, genuinely, didn't realize she needed the money.  If the Hillary campaign announced the fact that she had indeed loaned herself $5 million because she knew Russert, Matthews (etc) would pounce and once again try and slam the door shut on her candidacy and pronounce her over.  Then good for her.  yes, the news spread like wildfire, and many of us, who are tired of having to apologize for our support, be told we're not part of a movement, that we're not good progressives decided to come out of the Hillary closet we've been pushed into and are telling our friends and family:  If she loses, we won't let it be because she didn't have the resources.  

And yes, I wish they would have engaged this type of fundraising sooner, but better late than ever!!

[ Parent ]
please let this election be about more than base identity politics (4.00 / 2)
I don't want Hillary to be the nominee, but that's because she voted for the war in Iraq, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and because she surrounds herself with people like Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe. That and she campaigns against things she supported when it was politically convenient - now she wants to end the Iraq war, and campaigns against don't ask don't tell and the defense of marriage act.

I want someone who will stand up for what's right even when it's unpopular, not someone who minces words and says things like "I don't like how the war went, but I don't regret my vote for it, and if I could go back I'd still vote for it."

There is a lot of disgusting misogyny out there, and it would be even worse if Hillary was a real progressive. But the arguments above are not a misogynistic attack on women. If so, then I know a lot of women with serious self-hatred issues.

[ Parent ]
Bravo! (4.00 / 2)
(or should it be Brava?)

Well said.  My sentiments exactly.

I generally think and have thought for quite a while that HRC is the better candidate and would make the better actual president by far.  But the misogny makes me absolutely crazy and definitely increases the level of my support-- and my willingness to cough up some dough I can't really spare.

[ Parent ]
Props above meant for Shortcake (0.00 / 0)
Can't believe how many comments got posted here while I was typing out my Bravo/Brava.

[ Parent ]
oh yeah... (0.00 / 0)
And I am not a suburbanite either, but a single urban woman.

I'm not a suburbanite either (4.00 / 8)
A woman, yes, but creative class--artist & rural. Last election cycle I was in the "cool" crowd, supporting Dean. But I've given twice in the last week to HRC. Because she's the most progressive of the two Democrats left standing.

And my daughters, an environmental activist and a filmmaker (creative class, last I heard) are also HRC supporters.

I am so tired of these stereotypes about women and dismissive references to "suburban women" and "older women", that I could scream. We are people, we are intellectuals, we think, and we evaluate based on evidence not hype.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
It kind of sucks not being in the cool crowd this time around. I feel like I have "Republican" stamped on my forehead.

Oh well. The price we pay for our convictions.

[ Parent ]
To Coral and Shortcake (4.00 / 1)
Hillary voted for war in Iraq. She refuses to apologize. Then, Hillary voted to censure Iran.

How do these votes make her the 'progressive' candidate? At least, how do they make her more progressive than Obama?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
enough already... (4.00 / 3)
with this war crap! She doesn't need to apologize because she didn't vote to go to war. she voted to give power to Bush to do what's right and only go to war as the last resort. She wanted UN inspection to prove that there is WMD before going to war. Bush lied. Obama twisted her words.


I'm so sick and tired of misinformed people believing in what the media feeds them.  

[ Parent ]
Well, you insulted me (0.00 / 0)
Well done.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Wait, really? you're kidding right? (4.00 / 2)

Are we really at the point where there are Democrats that are arguing that the "Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq" was not a vote for war?

This can't be happening....the party really has split!

[ Parent ]
no, i'm not kidding. (0.00 / 0)
read her floor speech. her position was clearly stated. "Authorization for use of military force in Iraq" only when it is absolutely necessary. She trusted Bush. Maybe she shouldn't have. But didn't Obama actually voted to fund the war?

[ Parent ]
More progressive (0.00 / 0)
Health care is just one way she is more progressive than Barack.
Messaging is another.  

I'm sure there are more as well. Just as there are examples of him being more progressive than her in a few areas, I'm sure.

Neither one can claim the progressive movement mantel, as far as I'm concerned.

[ Parent ]
And Obama ? (4.00 / 5)
Had an opinion against the war.  But when elected he joined the club
"So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

"Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]

Has Obama apologized for these statements?  

[ Parent ]
We are are the change we have been waiting for (4.00 / 1)
There is probably something of an earthquake inside the Clinton campaign when these tired Clinton operatives, cynical for 20 years, actually feel, really feel, her supporters reach out and lift them up for the first time.

perhaps later examination of the data will show (4.00 / 1)
the curious need for more complex gender analysis in some of our political writing and discourse. the thought i had reading this post: women, as a group, earn less than men for the same amount/type of work. so the money that comes from women donors "means more" than the same amount from a man. i'd love to see a gender/income/marital status/donation rate breakdown here. for this spate of fundraising, and her previous periods/quarters/whatever.

how many months of spending are left? what is the total and individual cost of those markets? i haven't done a breakdown, but that would help me perceive the strategy here. there are still possibly several more months, and states, and perhaps even the need for some grease around convention time. if you're making hillary's (or obama's) "ideal budget" for the next few months, how big is it and in what size chunks do you need it? once you know that, you have a better idea of what kind of strategy this fundraising event is, and what it represents in her/his arsenals. just my gut/2c, but i believe that HRC has some stuff yet up her sleeve, and that BHO is demonstrating his mastery of the quick learning curve, but a definite prediliction for certain kinds of tactics. will they hold out thru the end, and/or is he planning a sudden changeup in the homestretch?

As a former Deaniac, I can't help but smile and think, (0.00 / 0)
they are just discovering now the value of "putting up a bat??!!

Maybe it was hubris, they "had already been there, done that" - won the presidency before the internet - they didn't need to learn any new tricks.... their rolodex worked just fine thank you very much....


It's always fun to watch someone discover the power of technology for the very first time.

You're right, they are probably giddy in the HC campaign right now with the response they've gotten.

ouch, susan! (0.00 / 0)
i think you're right. i just grokked the important part of matt's post: $7 million from 45,00045, not 650 or 1m. if she can splurge spend and retake the "momentum" lead quickly, that number will just go up. "put up the bat" indeed, my goodness i hadn't even considered the 'too arrogant to try that interwebs stuff' angle. good call.

total number of potential "small" larger than every one else donors to hillary = 1/2 of american population / half again who won't vote for her for various reasons / half again who don't vote at all / half again who hold jobs and have some cash to spend / half again who follow politics enough to know the state of the campaigns / half again who read email / half again who will open them / one quarter who will respond with a check that week. 300m halved 8 times...that's still almost 1m women who could send her money, more than once if the message was crafted correctly. a lot of women would give hillary 150$ if they thought that someone was being that unfairly misogynist to her. there's easily 150m in small donations for hillary if she spun it right. give it a try, hill! here's the sad truth where you'll always have obama beat: black folk are fewer, more divided, less in touch with 'give candidates money,' and more poor. play your angle correctly and you'll easily outfund him in the home stretch.

[ Parent ]
Obama's coalition (4.00 / 2)
Obama has more than "black folk." Obama is the candidate of white men.

[ Parent ]
and.... (4.00 / 2)

And the youth vote (men & women) - and the educated white vote - and many of the unions - and independents, and centrist republicans.... and....

[ Parent ]
educated? (4.00 / 2)
And what are we?  The uneducated non creative class?  Get a grip on yourselves, the lines are not that clear.  

[ Parent ]
No offense intended. (4.00 / 1)

I'm just referring to the voting facts.  College educated whites vote in large numbers for Obama.  Less education whites are more likely to vote for Clinton.

[ Parent ]
it's nice to see someone groks something.... (0.00 / 0)
...though I didn't know about the lesbian fan base for Heinlein....

Aside from that - Have you considered that a vote for Obama will actually put THREE women in the White House?

Isn't that better than ONE?

Especially considering the double minority status of black women!

[ Parent ]
thank you SH (0.00 / 0)
for inspiring me to do a whole post on this. there's potential for laughs/excitement here, for us olde deaniacs. and open source types.

[ Parent ]
You are very welcome! (0.00 / 0)
Nice diary, too.

[ Parent ]
Ummm... (4.00 / 1)
Is anyone else concerned that this is going to quickly degenerate into a war between feminists and the rest of the party? Clinton's been running with the none-too-subtle subtext  which assumes the dreaded "with us or against us" tone. I fear she'll play that card with increasing volume as she loses more ground to Obama.

Whoa- (4.00 / 2)
I am a feminist and a Obama supporter....we are out there.

Yes I think the Clinton campaign is going for the feminist vote and with how the MSM has been treating her, it is based on a reality.  We feminist have been having this discussion for awhile now on the net.  

It really comes down to who you think is a better candidate on a mulitude of fronts.  Women can think for themselves and make a choice.  That is the whole point of feminism, so even if either campaign tries to make an issue out of it I am pretty sure we can handle it.

Here is an interesting interview on Democracy Now


[ Parent ]
indeed, no doubt, never would claim otherwise (4.00 / 2)
heh, i don't know if you now me, but let me just say it's hard to be me this election.

but leaving aside those of us brave enough to think outside the stereotypes of our "kind," let's speak frankly of money, voters, the media and what gets attention.

-most women are just now starting to pay, and pay attention, to campaigns. most americans are hardly following things at all. it's still too early.

-there are more american women than blacks.

-more blacks support BHO than HRC, and vice versa re women and white women.

-women make less as a group than men, but women who donate are a larger and richer group than all black donators.

-the media only profits if there is no clear winner for as long as possible, this is a "dream race" to them in terms of their ability to milk the narrative, false or true, until the bitter end. such an end also serves their masters, but nevermind that CT stuff right now.

-the intertubes are still largely untapped. i'm no expert, but many dollars and big brains have been devoted to "monetizing" this technology. in some cases it works. the first big money, well connected pol to truly apply and exploit the power of this technology will kick major ass.

-my money (but not my first, or even third choice of heart) is on HRC. bottom line, she's older and more experienced, which despite many romance novels to the contrary, usually beats "faster and pretty."  

[ Parent ]
Black (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure how comparing the number of blacks versus women is relevant.  If that was all the election was about, it would have ended a month ago in a Clinton landslide.

[ Parent ]
It's relevant (4.00 / 1)
Because this isn't the general. Blacks make up a HUGE percent of the Democratic primary vote, as we saw in South Carolina.  Blacks are an important part of the Democratic constituency, and traditionally so are unmarried women, as I'm sure you know. The point I think is that it's unfortunate to see the party split like this among certain demographic lines.

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 2)
Faster and pretty? Romance novels?
The man is a god damned constitutional scholar!
Please, just let the pundits and Republicans call him fast and pretty.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
What is Clinton's Experience? (4.00 / 1)
How is she 'more' experienced?

Clinton was elected to office in 2000

Obama was elected to office in 1997

[ Parent ]
Tired argument (4.00 / 2)
I agree that the experience meme is overblown, but you're not going to convince Clinton supporters, and it's off message from what Obama's campaign has been about.

I think Hillary's "experience" campaign is just shooting herself in the foot for November if she wins the nomination.  There is no way she can beat McCain in an experience contest.  When she was at Yale Law School, he was at the Hanoi Hilton.

If Hillary's the nominee, I'm all for her, but basing her whole campaign around experience will not be a winner in the fall.  Obama's narrative is perfect for a general election.  Hillary's narrative will need to do a 180.  Finally tapping into some grassroots support is a start.

[ Parent ]
Agree to an extent (0.00 / 0)
And I am a Clinton supporter. I think the experience theme was overemphasized and was a miscalculation to begin with.

(I still believe she's by far the more experienced candidate, but I'm talking message strategy now.)

I also agree that she has to find a new theme if running against McCain, who is also "experienced."  I think that's where party brand comes into play, and that's where the Clinton policies vs the Bush policies comes into play.

She can beat McCain, but she has to do it on more than "experience."  

[ Parent ]
John McCain was never (4.00 / 1)
part of a presidential administration.  Hillary was, and saw it all up close and very personal. We've literally never before had the possibility of a president who had eigth years on-the-job training.  It's one of the reasons I support her.

That said, she obviously needs to play that very, very carefully.  But I think most people get it.

[ Parent ]
<Sigh> (4.00 / 3)
Hillary Clinton was the first student speaker to give the commencement address at Wellesley.

Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law School and then worked as an attorney representing underprivileged children at the nationally renowned nonprofit Children's Defense Fund.

Hillary Clinton was one of two women lawyers working on the Nixon impeachment, and then moved to Arkansas and founded a free legal aid clinic for the poor, specializing in cases of child abuse and foster care. At age 30 she was appointed to the prestigious Legal Services Corporation, which provides counsel to the poor, by President Carter.

Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas from 1979-1981 and then from 1983-1992. During that time she was an integral part of her husband's team, and she continued to advocate for children, families, and education.  Simultaneously, she became the first female partner of the largest law firm in Arkansas, and she led the American Bar Association's commission on female attorneys.

Hillary Clinton, during her eight years as First Lady of the United States, continued to advocate for children, women, and families. She is widely viewed as the First Lady with the most power and influence over policy since Eleanor Roosevelt. She was the first First Lady with an office in the West Wing, and the first First Lady to head a major government task force and testify before Congress. Her efforts on behalf of universal health care failed, but gave us the hugely successful SCHIP program.

Hillary Clinton, after all that, was elected twice as United States Senator from New York.

Give me a break.  

[ Parent ]
there are two sides of her experience... (0.00 / 0)
15 of those 35 years of experience were as a corporate laywer....

And she was president of the College Young Republicans.

And she was on the board of union busting Wal-Mart for 6 years.

And she worked for TCBY.

And she was a corporate lawyer at Rose.

And lafarge, cattle futures, and whitewater.

And voted for the war.

And against the levin amendment.

and so on....


[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (4.00 / 2)
1. Nothing wrong with being a corporate lawyer. It is a respectable way to make a living, and you can even keep your conscience depending who your clients are. Who was supposed to pay the bills while Bill was running for office with a baby to feed?  What a gross argument.

2. She was a Goldwater Republican when she was all of 16 and in the years after that she saw the light, finally becoming a Democrat sometime before graduation law school. I hope we can all agree she is a Democrat.  Let's move on.  How stupid.

3. Yeah, I'm not so happy about Wal Mart. But they were a major, if not the largest, employer in the state of Arkansas. The only woman on the board, Hillary has been credited with trying to improve conditions for workers and specifically for women during her time on the board, although she met a lot of resistance. This was also a different time in the company's history, before Sam Walton died. At the time, Wal Mart was seen as the "Buy American" company.

4. She didn't work for TCBY, she was on their Board of Directors.  Forgive me, I haven't heard anything bad about this one. Insight please?

5. Again, what's wrong with being a corporate lawyer? What's wrong with Rose Law Firm? What's wrong with becoming the first female partner at the largest firm in the state? As an aside, St. Barack was a CORPORATE LAWYER for three years. In fact, he met his wife at a CORPORATE LAW FIRM!!!

6. Are we really going to go into Whitewater? Come on.

7. Senate record addressed heavily throughout this thread.

I am SO done debating you. Again, not sure if it's blind allegiance or gross misinformation.  

[ Parent ]
yes, blind and gross. (4.00 / 1)
So, now in addition to defending the Iraq war resolution, we have Democrats who defend being on the board of Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart "buy american" campaign (which was totally debunked), and the wonderful charity and good deeds of corporate lawyers.  (she was a corporate lawyer for 15 years - that's 1/2 the experience she claims)

A new day in the Democratic party has dawned...

I'm so tired of the corporate democrats - trying to sabotage the progressives (see The Clintons and Newsom vs. Matt Gonzalez).

It's time for a new party to emerge out of this.  I'm ready.

[ Parent ]
Barack Obama was NOT a corporate lawyer (0.00 / 0)
He worked at a civil rights law firm.


There is a difference.

His WIFE was a corporate lawyer for three years, at Sidley Austin.  Barack met her there as a summer associate during law school.  That's 10 weeks (< 15 years).


[ Parent ]
Whatever (0.00 / 0)
I'm not the one who has a problem with corporate lawyers. In fact, I'm very close to several corporate lawyers and corporate lawyers to be.  

But anyway - Barack's firm Miner, Barnhill, and Galland is a law firm with corporate clients. Semantics, semantics. It's not Sidley, but still. From Miner's website:

The firm has acquired a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work. In addition to its practice in these areas, the firm represents a broad range of individual and corporate clients, providing a wide variety of legal services.

As someone with a few ties to that world, let me tell you legal work is not as cut and dry as you make it seem.  Lawyers represent clients, plain and simple. And I couldn't care less. I think its an honest living, and clearly many lawyers in private practice go on to do great things in the public sphere.

If you want to talk about Hillary Clinton's work as a "corporate lawyer," fine. During that time when she was earning money for her family and responsibly representing her clients, she was also breaking barriers for women and continuing her advocacy work on behalf of the poor, children, families, and women, while sitting on the boards of several nonprofit organizations, and yes, corporations. And, around the same time, she was also first lady of a state!

Imagine that. Not exactly so cut and dry.

[ Parent ]
Corporate law: Not the devil, but not saintly either (0.00 / 0)
As someone with a few ties to that world, let me tell you legal work is not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

As a recent law school grad, I can tell you that no -- it is not "cut and dried" -- but it is ridiculous to try to blur the differences between a law firm that primarily represents plaintiffs in civil rights lawsuits from a firm that only has corporate clients.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

In the economic realm, Rose has been termed "the ultimate establishment law firm"[1] in the state; during the 1970s, for example, its clients included Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, large brokerage Stephens, Inc., Worthen Bank, and the Arkansas Democrat and other Hussman family media holdings

Where there is a big difference is one's intention:  becoming a civil rights lawyer is a very conscious choice, in which one foregoes higher renumeration because you want your legal career to reflect your values.  It is very hard to say the same of becoming a corporate lawyer, in less your values are that corporations need really good legal counsel.  

[ Parent ]
Good points (0.00 / 0)
Hillary made the conscience choice to forgo higher renumeration in order to work as a lawyer first at the Children's Defense Fund, then the Nixon impeachment committee, and finally the University of Arakansas (while working there briefly, she founded a legal clinic for the poor).

Finally, Hillary and Bill started a family. Bill ran for office, and Hillary became breadwinner. Do you blame her?

Similarly, Barack Obama has given up higher renumeration for his political goals while his wife Michelle Obama has done corporate legal work and other corporate work in order to be the family breadwinner.

Again, what's wrong with any of this?

No one said corporate law is saintly. But there is a such thing as honorable business. You know, I'm as liberal as they come, and have made my career so far solely in the political and nonprofit sectors where my work mostly (but not always) can "represent my values."  However, most people I know work in the private sector where their values kind of have to take a back seat. There's nothing wrong with earning a living, especially when you're also giving time and money to causes you believe in.

Hillary should be damn proud for the time she was a lawyer.  By the way, you completely ignored my earlier points about all the things she was involved with simultaneously while bringing home the bacon and breaking ceiling after ceiling for women.

[ Parent ]
it is ironic (0.00 / 0)
that you speak of thinking "outside the stereotypes". you might consider re-reading your own post and the big one before it that you wrote to see how narrowly you identify Obama with "black" and the conclusions you draw from that, and then you should consider looking at all the exit pole data.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
i can spell (4.00 / 1)
poll. see. there I did it.

/me rolls eyes at self

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Obama will raise another $7.4 mil online next Monday. (0.00 / 0)
Obama will raise another $7.4 mil online next Monday. Does anyone think the Clintons will repeat? This is NH all over again. I don't think it is sustainable.

Money brings money (0.00 / 0)
The campaign will find more big donors when they see the small donors and voters are not going away.  That is part of what has worked for Obama - 68% of his donors gave over $1000 after they saw all the small donors and realized he had a serious chance to win.

[ Parent ]
According to CBS (0.00 / 0)
She is about to loan her campaign $15 million more....

[ Parent ]
Probably (0.00 / 0)
There is probably something of an earthquake inside the Clinton campaign when these tired Clinton operatives, cynical for 20 years, actually feel, really feel, her supporters reach out and lift them up for the first time.

These supporters are helping those cynical political operative keep the one thing they truly care about.

Their job.

Listen up. (4.00 / 4)
Do not under-estimate Hillary's women.  We did not know Hillary was concerned about money.  Now we do.  Trust me, there is a groundswell of organizating going on right now - tens of thousands of us - not just hitting the "donate" button and heading off to bed; but working our email lists; calling all of our friends and acquaintances; and bringing in cash for Hillary.  

Hillary needs money.  That is the number one motivation.

But there is a second thing motivating us, and that is the growing realization that Barack Obama is the candidate of platitudes who has mesmerized hundreds of thousands of people into thinking he will save them, or through him, they will save themselves.  We are afraid.  When Wolcott, Krugman, Merritt, Conason and many others warn us about Obama, we know we have to pay attention.  

""At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"(Barack Obama in South Carolina in January)

Oh really? (4.00 / 2)
"growing realization that Barack Obama is the candidate of platitudes who has mesmerized hundreds of thousands of people into thinking he will save them, or through him, they will save themselves."

Have you read any of Obama's policy statements?

For example his statement on technology?  Or any of the exremely well thought out reasons people are endorsing him?

Like Lawrence Lessig:

Or the 100 NY Feminists:  http://www.ipetitions.com/peti...

[ Parent ]
obama the stuffed suit (4.00 / 3)
For all the talk of how the MSM hates Clinton, they never question, and often repeat, that attack on Obama.

That along with the "Obama is inexperienced and has never been in a competitive election" meme. When of course, Hillary glided to her senate seat in 2000 based on name recognition, and Obama was elected to the state senate in 1996.

[ Parent ]
Glided to Senate seat (0.00 / 0)
Hillary was beating Giuliani in the polls before he dropped out, and personally I believe that's why he exited the race.


Regardless, she didn't just "glide" to her seat. She worked her ass off and ran a damn good campaign.  In 2006, she scared all viable opponents out of the race and won with 67% (!!!) of the vote.

And I do believe she gets some credit for at least being involved in Bill's races. Come on, she was the presidential candidate's wife, twice, and she certainly took more heat than Tipper Gore, Laura Bush, or Teresa Heinz ever got.  

[ Parent ]
Woah... (0.00 / 0)

Here in NYC, the idea of Giuliani ever getting even close to the nomination was completely laughable.

He never could have survived - it was doomed from day one.

[ Parent ]
Whoa (0.00 / 0)
Talking about 2000 senate race. not presidential. or are you too young to remember that one?

And you're from NYC?!

[ Parent ]
Unwitting? (0.00 / 0)
The analysis is interesting, and I am sure that she is not lying about the donation, but is the broader message (I'm being pushed around by the establishment so please help me) really unwitting?

Sheesh (4.00 / 1)
HRC is a professional politician, and a good one. Of course every nuance of her message is intellectualized as to whether it advances her campaign. You, without supporting data, hypothesize that the 5M loan is a fund raising stunt. OK, two can play that game. I hypothesize that HRC loaned her campaign 5M because the campaign needed it, she had it, and because she believes in her own candidacy. So there. The timing of the announcement is pretty obvious: You don't show weakness just before the big vote.  

[ Parent ]
Huge (4.00 / 5)
I really want Obama to win, but this is just huge.  Awesome!

The moment politicians realize they don't need big money donations and are better off working directly with the people, well, that is the moment we win.  Seriously.

Rise Hillary , Rise (4.00 / 7)
   I donated for a political campaign for the first time today.  I am a 'rich' married mom, who has always worked in campaigns for the Democrats but have never given money. Somehow, I always feel that our marital money is not mine to give this way.  That is why Obama's comments about whether it was Hillary's money made me really mad.  The woman is 60 years old , a US Senator, who has written many books.  How dare a man that asked a crook to help him finance his home, question Hillary's finances.  IF YOU CAN NOT RUN YOUR OWN HOUSE, HOW CAN YOU RUN THE WHITE HOUSE, indeed.
  Hillary has empowered me.  My 16 year-old daughter always accuses me of 'staking the blogs', but I just registered and am actually letting my voice be heard.  I may even go over to Daily Kos!!!! I am ready to go to the mat for Hillary, not really for her, or for me, but for my children and for America.  

the reason we are wondering whose money it is (4.00 / 3)
is because we have no financial transparency from the Clintons and we have no idea where they get their money from. Bill apparently does a lot of business with foreign states and very wealthy Americans and it would appear that he may owe a few favors. whose money is it? and where did it come from are legitimate questions. if they would release their tax returns we would see the income and that would be that. if they would release the donations made to the Clinton library we would also know who gave and are any favors expected?

The Clintons are maintaining a financial silence regarding their records, their income and their donations. Its totally inappropriate--even more so when they use money to fund a race for president but don't admit where the money came from.

She certainly didn't earn $5mil as a Senator.  

[ Parent ]
I remember an $8 million advance for her (4.00 / 2)
last book.  That a start for you?  By the way: REZKO, REZKO, REZKO!  Now maybe you're as insulted as you are insulting.

[ Parent ]
Where does Obama get his money (4.00 / 4)
WASHINGTON ? While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital.

Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

"Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

"He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."


[ Parent ]
Oh, for God's sake (4.00 / 1)
I, too, wish the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, would release more info on this kind of thing.  But she -- not he, she -- has a major thing about privacy and always has.

If ANYTHING should be clear from their lifetimes, it's that they don't give a good goddamn about money personally.  And here you are, buying into the right-wing BS of how many years?  That Bill is surreptitiously scooping up big bucks from foreign sources in return for "favors."  The "business" he does with foreign sources is for his incredibly effective global charity, not for his own pocket or Hillary's campaign, which would of course be illegal, as should be obvious.  There is also absolutely no record of Bill or Hillary EVER trading money, even campaign money, for favors other than the totally harmless overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Shame on you.

Advocate for your candidate by all means, but sliming people with baseless insinuation this way is not only immoral, it's supposed to be against everything your man is about.

[ Parent ]
Thank you! (4.00 / 1)
Let's remember they couldn't even afford to buy a home after leaving the White House!!! They did not have a dime to their names.

They had to borrow heavily for that house. These people were broke before Hillary's book was published. And the big bucks didn't come until Bill hit the speaking circuit.

I think they're entitled to a little financial success after 30 years of doing the people's work, and clearly, she's willing to give it up in order to keep serving.  

[ Parent ]
politics is all about favors (0.00 / 0)
Ever heard of a certain pardon.....

[ Parent ]
Blame Marc Rich on Ehud Barak.... (4.00 / 1)
...whom Clinton was working with at the time on a ME peace settlement.  

Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you peddling Republican propaganda in a Democratic primary?  Why not bring up the travel office, Rose law firm, heck thrown in Vince Foster while you're at it.

Did you know the Clintons provided airstrips in Arkansas for cocaine smugglers?

[ Parent ]
Empowered women (4.00 / 5)
I am a  woman and a first generation immigrant from south east Asia, and work in the health care industry.  I have been a passive consumer of politics for the last 2 cycles, but this election I have been empowered by Hillary's candidacy.  I have not only donated money, but made phone calls through my laptop, organized friends, had discussions regarding the best candidate and requested people to give money.  I can see the impact of my I guess activist activities on my daughter who is 7 years old.  She and her friends in 1st grade are talking about this in school and classes.  
I think the perception out there that only Obama is generating excitement and bringing in new voters and organizing new voters is wrong.  People are seriously underestimating the effect of Hillary's campaign on women.

This is the first time in this country that there is a serious woman candidate for the highest office in this country.  
It not only empowers us to participate in politics, it empoweres us to come out of the closet in her support and to stand firm by our beliefs and fight for our beliefs in tthe work place.
No matter the outcome, at the end of the nominationn fight, the women in t his country will be transformed in ways that will take years to deterrmine.  I say let the fight continue!
And I think our daughters and sons who watch us, are getting comfortable with the idea of political activism and will be the next generation of activists.  What an amazing impact!

We organize in a much more subtle, manner, sharing a few minutes at work, talking and exchanging news.  The impact of this is just as high as anything else formal out there.

[ Parent ]
Clinton $$ (2.67 / 3)
Sorry to be the skunk at the party, but my bullshit meter has gone off, and is blinking away in code red mode at the moment.

We had an upstart candidate (Obama) running a people-fueled grassroots campaign, and whupping the snot out of the DLC gang that is directing Hillary's operation.  She started with every conceivable advantage a political candidate could ever want.  But now he's rocking the house, drawing huge crowds, gathering major endorsements, drawing dead even with her in both popular vote and delegates, raising money online from small donors like crazy, and all of a sudden Hillary magically taps into her previously anemic online support base and raises $7 million in a couple of days?

Remember, this is the same woman who "forgot" to remove her name from the ballot in Michigan, and now tells us that she deserves to own those delegates, even though the other contestants respected party rules and didn't compete in the state.

Excuse my cynicism, but I'm not buying any of the spin coming out of the Hillary camp.  Not a word. I won't be surprised if we learn that her campaign is being fueled in part by that $31 million uranium deal that her husband just pulled off in Kazakhstan.

Vote Obama (0.00 / 0)
Al very good reasons to vote for Obama, but it doesn't change the transformative nature of what is going on.  This is still a big deal.  The more politicians feel their loyalty is too the people the better off we are.

[ Parent ]
no one is going to claim that obama is funded by (4.00 / 2)
mob money via his rezko ties, or kenyan oil/drug money. so unless you've got a check---->HRC campaign bank account sort of link, i'm going to gloss on by your "Kazakhstan for Hillary" comment.  

[ Parent ]
the clintons will use whatever money they can get (0.00 / 0)
Considering that Hillary just donated $5 million of her own money to her campaign, and Bill makes statements like he'd be willing to spend all the money he's made in the last five years to get her elected, I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched.

Also, who was accusing Obama with the "kenyan oil/drug money" bit? I haven't heard anyone say that, ever.

[ Parent ]
You are not excused. Buy what you want, (0.00 / 0)
just don't spread your lies too far.

[ Parent ]
She didn't "forget" to remove her name from the MI Ballot (2.00 / 2)
She just wasn't stupid enough to be talked into removing her name from the Michigan ballot. The state put them on the ballot, they only came off if you requested it. The pledge the candidates took did not require them to request their names be removed from the ballot.

Edwards talked the very naive Obama into removing his name ("I'll do it if you will"). Hillary knew this wasn't a bright idea and didn't play into Edwards' game.

Before you start whining about this being untrue and unfair, remember, No one took their name off the Florida ballot!

Hillary kept her pledge and did not campaign in Mi or FL. Unlike Obama who ran adds in Florida and did a press conference after a fundraiser (Fund raising was allowed).

And before you start whining about Clinton asking for the delegates to be seated at the convention, Obama also said to the press back in October that he would try to seat the Florida delegates! He just flip-flopped on the issue because he didn't win! Petulant. Naive. Gullible.

This is why experience matters. Hope doesn't pay the mortgage, although Rezko sure seems to in Obama's case!

That is what drives me crazy. I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying no one ever helped me buy a house, not even my parents. I did it on my own. Unlike Obama. Rezko, currently under criminal indictment, helped him buy his mansion.  I wonder what will come out in the general if he becomes the nominee?

Obama can go ask Rezko for more money if he needs it.

Hillary is getting my money.  Hillary will represent me. I know her position on issues. I trust her to work for me on universal health care and the economy. I know she won't duck the hard votes or just vote "present" when it really counts and everything is on the line.

Obama is running on a 2002 speech on the Iraq war. He hasn't done anything to stop the war. He has been in the senate, when he wasn't ducking votes his votes were the same as Hillary. Where was all this brilliant oration then? Why didn't he work to get the troops out of Iraq if he believed so passionately that this was the right thing to do? Because he is too cowardly and cowed to take a stand on principles.

Oh, and you need principles before you can stand on them. Hope doesn't pay the mortgage. That was Rezko.

[ Parent ]
She won't be 'voting' as president...but anyway... (4.00 / 1)
"Obama also said to the press back in October that he would try to seat the Florida delegates!"

Do you have a citation for this?

I'll bet the language he used isn't really what you said.

[ Parent ]
Imagine if it was the other way (4.00 / 1)
The netroot whining..." she made the rules in her favor, we have to break them"  

You guys with all your fantasy politics web based game have elevated whining to an art form.  

[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
The Iowa Independent reported that it was Obama's idea for the candidates to remove their name from the ballot.  This is the first I've heard anyone suggest that Edwards was the kingpin.

[ Parent ]
"Forgot" to remove her name from ballot? (4.00 / 2)
Where on earth did you come up with that?  She never "forgot" to remove it.  She said at the very beginning that she didn't think it was necessary.

"We're honoring the pledge and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar,'' Clinton spokesman Jay Carson told The Associated Press. "We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot."


[ Parent ]
Funny seeing Obama's voters calling us naive (4.00 / 4)
To Obama's credit, Clinton's people did not expect to need so much money.  No one has ever raised so much in a primary as he has.

I have given small amounts to both Dodd and Clinton in the past. Clinton has had little contests on-line, like 'watch the debate with Bill and Chelsea if you donate this week' and stuff like that.  It was always done in a fun way, and not  like 'we really need the money'.  It did not have the sense of urgency I got from the pleas from less well funded campaigns, so I honestly didn't think about the fact that the money gets spent as more and more time goes by without a nominee.

So I gave some yesterday, and I'll give more next week if she has a decent showing in the states this week.  I don't expect her to win, just come close, and then come back strong in Ohio, Penn, and Texas.

Since my Florida vote didn't count, I'll vote with my checkbook and help get an ad on the air in Virginia.

Thank you, Matt (4.00 / 2)
the last 48 hours is the haul by the Hillary Clinton campaign of around $7 million from 45,000 online donors or so

for reminding me. I'll give her 50 dollars right now.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

same old coaltion? (4.00 / 2)
I think we could argue all day about who is more progressive. Certainly, they are both fine politicians. But while Hillary seems to excite people who are already staunch Democrats, Obama appeals to people outside the party. I hope people take that into account, especially that Mr. Straight Talk is the Republican nominee.

This is a new Delegate Count Visual - ! (0.00 / 0)
And really interesting the way they are visualizing this.

I suspect they wouldn't do it unless they thought they would be winning this:


I have to say (4.00 / 1)
that after slogging through the comments above this is one of the most boring sessions I have ever read on Open Left, although I'm happy that some people like Clinton and some Obama and some are donating money.

yep (0.00 / 0)
Agreed. We've been through most of these arguments already. Let's move on...

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
Completely missing the point (4.00 / 1)
A lot of female posters (lurkers?) that I've never seen on this board before, saying, Dammit, I'm sick to death of the obvious misogyny being aimed at someone who may be our first female president, and I'm gonna do something about it.

Yeah.  Boring.

[ Parent ]
Object (4.00 / 3)
I object to your title and your presumptions.  I know several people who have donated to Hillary in the last 48 hours.  And we're all men.

You jumped the gun, Matt and Chris (0.00 / 0)
Mrs. Clinton's team mobilized Thursday to send reassuring messages to donors and supporters. The campaign first announced raising $4 million in 24 hours, then $6 million in 36 hours and then $7.5 million in total since Feb. 1.

Now let's put this in perspective. After it was leaked that Bill n Hill were funding the HRC campaign, it was presumed that the loan of $5 Million was included in the January figure to up her number to double digits.

HRC Camp stated "No that loan was not included in the Janaruy fundraising figures."

Now we have the HRC Camp saying that she raised $7.5 Million since Feb. 1. It does not state in on line contributions. So where is the loan in all these figures that the HRC Camp is spinning.  Desperate times are showing desperate measures in the HRC Camp.  

Here is the link to the NY Times article

If not NOW, when?

Congrats to Hillary and her supporters from an Obama fan (4.00 / 1)
This is excellent news for Hillary's campaign and excellent news for campaigning in general.

Women my ass (4.00 / 1)
I gave her $50.
    --signed Mr. 1arryb

It was the Celine Dionne song contest. (0.00 / 0)
It was bound to pay of at some point. Excuse me while I go gag myself.

There is a big distinction between HRC and Obama (0.00 / 0)
Clinton had to

1) Admit that she needed money
2) Donate $5 million to herself
3) Ask Campaign staff to go unpaid
4) Launch a major campaign to raise funds

Meanwhile Obama had to

1) ....

nothing - his supporters took it upon themselves to donate 7.5 million in 36 hours AFTER it was announced that he pulled in $32 million in January and was awash in cash. People are giving because they want him to win, not because he is broke and floundering.

Jabberwonk! Reality Based Link Dump

Damn, Stoller (4.00 / 2)
Just last night I swore I wouldn't give money to either Obama or Clinton - preferring to spend my disposable income at theHungerSite.org but this post got me to send her ten bucks. That and the YouTube I watched of Whoopi talking about Clinton and trade on the View.  

Let me put some perspective on it for you (0.00 / 0)
As a "suburban" woman, I heard Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million. I went to DailyKos, and saw some snarky campaign to raise enough to match that amount for Obama.

I went to HillaryClinton.com and contributed.

Not an organized effort really. Obama's was an organized effort by DailyKos bloggers. Emily's List may have done some of it, but those women give all the time.

Both candidates are getting corporate donations, and holier than thou doesn't play well in presidential candidates.

Creative class == working class sometimes ... (0.00 / 0)
Creative class AND working class here ...  I'm definitely a latte-liberal and happy to be so.  But the only reason I am is because of my Depression-kid parents who busted their asses working multiple exhausting jobs to give me the educational opportunities I needed to become a latte-liberal.  My heart and loyalties most definitely lie with the working class, the labor unions, and with people who are doing for their families what my parents did for me and my brothers.  I'm a latte-drinking, sushi-chomping West Coast pinko, but every time I go to the dentist and have to dig myself out of the neglect of my earlier years, I know where my political loyalties lie.  Every time I bend over and get that twinge that reminds me that I didn't get the back brace I could have used when I was growing up, I know my roots and know where my loyalties lie.  I love sushi and raspberry balsamic vinaigrettes, and I speak three languages and adore classical theater, but damn it, my roots are Dunkin Donuts and they always will be, and I will never, ever forget that.

And I voted for HRC in the CA primary, I've donated a total of $400 so far to her, and I would crawl on my knees over broken glass to vote for her again this November.  So here's one latte-liberal going against the grain.  Creative class is not some set exclusive of working-class (and creative class people aren't all Obama fans), and it would behoove people who talk about American politics to remember that in a country that encourages people to work hard and lift their kids above their own station, class lines are a little hazier than they may realize.  Just because I live in southern California, eat paninis and blended mochas at a local coffee shop, and live a white-collar life doesn't mean I started out with that or anything like it as a child.  When I see blue-collar people, my heart lies with them, because advanced degrees notwithstanding, I am one of them.  And I will always vote like one.

Hillary's Women | 200 comments

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox