Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

Perhaps it isn't the article that's biased, but rather your reading of it? You seemed to have overlooked the hyperlink contained within.

I was going to link to this statistic... but felt like I had posted enough about the last RCP poll. I'm glad someone else did :)

in addition to she has to "earmark" a certain portion for a general election - she cannot use it for primaries. SCORE!!! I made an earmark conundrum/funny about her own campaign finance oversight.

That is not true.

It's true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters. According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company's founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company's anti-union stand, they said. But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing "serious differences" with its "current" practices.

Hazel, I said "as they did Obama's." The article is biased because it is forwarding something that really isn't so when you put it side by side. But the way they linked it is telling too.

Her campaign suck, but she rocks.
Anything is better than Goerge Bush

I had to drink a glass of wine to answer this one. Trinity, you are in over your head on what this means. It's not that "ooh she's thinking ahead already has money set aside for a primary out fundraising McCain. McCain doesn't have any debts. He's not still trying to fundraise for a primary. Hillary is trying to be competitive until July. It's not great that she has 21.5 million for a general election. It means she's hurting for donors. You can donate up to 2300 per person for each election. 2300 for a primary and another 2300 for a general election. So when you have people donating for a general election in a competitive race that Hillary is trying to compete with Obama - it's a clear indicator they cannot donate to her primary campaign.

Superdelegates pay attention to that. It means her supporters are already stretched out and she hasn't locked the nomination yet.

Obama isn't in the red and has 30 million to spend on a primary and that is the current race and he hasn't tapped out his campaign donators.

So for the primary race she really only raised 12 million and she spent say 20 million. Leaving her 8.7 million in debt. She is trying to keep up with Obama - he has 30 million for a primary. If I were making this shit up - Bill Clinton would not be asking for campaign donations to buy ad time in PA. Why? Because that is a primary race and they are out of Primary money and in the red.

read Bill's comments on it here:

From Bill, himself:

“The Obama campaign is already on the air with their first ad in Pennsylvania, putting their fundraising advantage to work,” Clinton writes in an email fundraising message on behalf of his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton. “They're going to spend every dollar they've got to end this race in Pennsylvania, and we can't let that happen.”
Clinton says his wife needs help to get on the air in Pennsylvania to match Obama’s spending advantage. ”In Texas and Ohio, your incredible support kept us competitive, and today this race is close thanks to what you did for Hillary,” Clinton writes.
”Now the Obama campaign is going to do everything they can to try to beat Hillary in Pennsylvania. They're going to try to outspend us 3-1 on the air -- and their first ads are already up and running,” he continues.


Biased by whom? Fair enough you're daring me to find out the guy's source. I'll check the source. He mentioned the Federal Election Commission. Hang on. Found it...The disclosure of campaign. Oooh. A database...

I'll start with entering a candidate's name "Hillary"
Okay which race click on the drop down menu? "Presendential"
Okay which period? Let's start with February Monthly.
click sumbit.
"Hillary for President committee" Score! Found it.
Okay what do I click on? Loans? Nah. Outstanding Debts? Yep, that works. Click on line 12 Schedule D.

Holy shit. Travel, phone bills, Travel, Security, Food&Beverage, Phone bills, Phone bills, Phone bills, Printing.

Scroll to the bottom. There it is 7.5 million. Well they have the whole number I just abbreviated it.

Here I saved the link for this report on debts here (see for yourself)
Schedule D for Line #12


Okay but the article says she's 8.7 million in debt.

Well let's look at March Monthly (march isn't over, but maybe they have submitted it there).

Back to query page.

Yep there it is:

By March 20, 2008 her debts went up to 8.7 million
(again SCROLL to the bottom of the page on this link)
Schedule D for Line #12

Yep there it is at the bottom 8.7 million in debt.

So if there is any bias in that article it's because her campaign is reporting it that way.

You think it great that Hillary has money set aside for a general election.
No the reality is that they are trying to fund a primary run and want to let 10 more states vote and make the argument that superdelegates should give it to her. She needs money to continue a primary race, Trinity.

30 million in a month - 1/2 she cannot touch and has outstanding debts and she wants to be competitive in those remaining states. So really she's raised 12 million. McCain already has his nomination locked and the dems are still locked in a primary race so he doesn't need to raise 30 million. In Hillary's case she's only raised 12million. McCain has raised 11 million and has 8 million cash on hand and already buying ad time for a general election.

So your analysis that Hillary's in the black is incorrect.

If Bill begging for money for ads in PA isn't enough to sum that up for you. Then I'll just laugh it off to you being histrionic.

Hillary raised 35 million, but the spent 33 million to stay competitive w/ Obama's fundraising. Of the 33 million she has for cash on hand 21.5 million is for a general election that she cannot touch. So What it really mens that is that she raised 11.7 million for a primary campaign and when you subtract the 8.7 million in debt, she's left 3 million. She has 3 million and Obama has 30 million to spend on a primary. Do you get why Bill Clinton is begging for money for ad time? Do you get why it's a big deal if she is trying to convince Superdelegates to let her continue to campaign in a primary race and she is scraping for funds?

Obama doesn't have to return primary campaign donations that are leftover if by some injustice at the DNC doesn't get the nomination.

Why don't you just go to her website and give her a donation - apparently they really need the money.

Look... I'm as much of an Obama supporter as anyone. I've campaigned for him in three states so far (South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas), and I'll be driving to North Carolina to keep it up in a few weeks.

With that said, ALL of the candidates are going to advocate the position that scores them the best chance of winning. Barack doesn't want to seat Michigan or Florida's delegates because that would hurt him, and Hillary wants to seat them because it would obviously help her. So in that sense you could argue that none of them really care about democracy, but the truth is simply that when fighting for the most powerful seat in the world, and candidate is going to do what a candidate has to do. Shameful and sad maybe, but just remember that elections should be about issues first and foremost, so all you can do is try not be be sidetracked by these retarded stories about who does or doesn't care about democracy. Our government hasn't been a democracy since the day of its birth, and even if every vote in MI and FL counts it still isn't democratic because the overall popular vote doesn't determine the nominee.

It doesn't matter whether Obama is reluctant or if Hillary wants to seat them as is. It's not up to them, because everyone has to agree DNC, candidates and the other 48 states have to agree that any re-vote is done fairly.

There hasn't been a federal judge that has ruled how it is possible in Michigan to do a re-vote, and claim the election was a fair one. No one is saying it was a fair election. Hillary argues that we're disenfranchising two key states. Not on what their legislations did to put them in that position.

I'm really fed up reading this crap about Hillary wants them seated and Obama is blocking them from being seated.

it's a distortion on both accounts. They both want delegations to be seated at the DNC - they differ on how that can be accomplished fairly.

Obviously you are right, but my point was that their disagreements are still based on who benefits. I don't think seating the current delegates is a fair move, and I doubt that most Hillary supporters think it's fair either, but since she would obviously benefit from doing so I don't think any of the Hillblazers would be too upset if they were seated.

Trinity:

Hillary for President Total Debts This Period (1/21/2008 - 2/20/2008) = 7576700.00

Hillary for President Total Debts This Period (2/21/2008 - 3/20/2008) = = 8733603.00


After paying her 8.7 million debt she has 3 million for a primary - a big primary in PA. 3 million to staff her campaign, security, travel, phone and buy TV ADS in PA. 8.7 million was her debt for in March. Do you get it - she's in the RED? It matters that she has millions for a general election, if she has to be competitive in a primary and has no funds to sustain it.

that's what being in the red means.

Oh I'm quite clear that is the option they want...with the "Obama made his own decision to remove his name from the ballot...the results should be seated as is." It's a peripheral that means nothing the DNC sanction them before the race began and these state legislators were warned for a long time and warned repeatedly - they will lose delegate votes for moving their primaries up.

If you look at the budgets that candidates have...when states all jump the gun to move up their primaries it strains the candidate's options, because they have to travel and campaign and make demands on budgets and to generate a lot of money right away.

If what they end up talking about is reform of the primaries, since are in an uproar about which state gets to shape how the race unfolds. Then my suggestion (can't really call it my suggestion) is do 5 regional primaries, 10 states at a time and do it geographically. They'll bitch about how candidates only campaign in the biggest states then.

I honestly favor 50 states, one day. I also favor complete public funding (only for primaries) and scrapping the delegate system completely. I say that the overall, nationwide popular vote should be the only determining factor for the primary. That way big states and little states will count, and public funding will allow lesser known candidates to compete on a more equal playing field all the way through the primary date. This seems the most democratic option to me, but unfortunately the Democratic party is only a name and not a reality.

I used to think that as well.. but people show up and are easily more manipulated by TV ads (like the 3am phone call).

Indy made an interesting post on the merits/setbacks to caucus vs. primaries.

Is this how HILLARY intends to unite the country?

So while I think caucuses are complicated (don't envy Hazel at all) I think you get to talk to someone about the issues, versus a voting site where you cannot campaign and people are just informed about the latest propaganda on the news.

Given how people are manipulated by primary ads, I like the delegate votes - because states need to have sovereignty, as they do in the General election.

I'm over the super-delegate thing, because it's aristocratic and for a democratic party - it seems at odds with party's philosophies. "We decide what is right for the democratic party?"