which would be the right thing for her to do. She's got a safe Senate seat and could be a great senator if she weren't focusing on positioning for a presidential run.

No one in iowa supports her.

Any of our New Yorkers know if she actually campaigned with any state candidates? Gave money to them?

I'm okay with her not having coattails if she at least made an effort to lift them up. If she doesn't have coattails AND didn't do anything to help those candidates, THEN we have a real problem.

Oh, and other than that one random, utterly unsubstantiated blurb about Reid's willingness to let her be majority leader, has anyone else ever heard anything about Clinton considering the position? I sure haven't. It seems like one of those silly one-shot rumors that pop up and become ingrained in netroots culture.

If it's true that she and Spitzer got Kiryas Joel to flip its bloc vote from Republican to Democrat, we owe them NY-19.

I'm no Hillary fan, but at least there's that.

There's a reason Hillary is building up her own "shadow DNC" operation:  it's because running against her party makes a lot of strategic sense for her if she wants to be President.  It's an unfortunate trend amongst many modern Democratic presidential candidates (see: Jame MacGregor Burns excellent book "Running Alone").  But if she has any shot, she will need to defuse the attacks that she's a crazy leftist which will mean focusing on her own cult of personality, not the welfare of the party as a whole.

I'm not defending Hillary. I actually hate doing it. But it seems like you first zero in on a conclusion you like and they gather your evidence.

New York has 23 Democrats of a total delegation of 29. This election could have easily swept in three other House challengers all of whom lost by 3 percent or less (Massa, Davis and Maffei). Had they won, would you be proclaiming Hillcary queen of all that is Democratic?

Bayh didn't sweep anyone into office when he ran. As I recall in 2004 Indiana elected Bayh but only two Democrats to office.

The real problem with Hillary is blowing $29 million on a Senate race that she could have won by fewer percentage points for about $28 million less. Unlike the cheapskate Bayh, Hillary actually gave money to other Democrats - $5 million total. To my best recollection Bayh cut a check for $100k in the waning days for the campaign.

It may not be how Hillary works, but Bill has always been a tireless campaigner all over the country.

... is that there is only one candidate with the requisite political cajones to be President and that is Feingold. As I recall everyone else in the Senate disqualified themselves with a vote for the Patriot Act.

Its time to go hunting through the Democratic governors in smaller states like Kansas and North Carolina for the next big thing. Anyone notice that the governors of Kansas and North Carolina are pro-choice in blood red states? Also North Carolina's delegation is 7-5 in favor of Democrats. Could be 8-4 after a recount in NC-08. If were looking for someone for coattails, Mike Easley might have some.

Not long from now.  

Hillary campaign heavily for Kirsten Gillibrand throught the election cycle.  I am not sure how much involvement she had with the other candidates, though I do know that she did some campaigning with Arcuri and Hall.

If someone is to blame for lack of state legislature pick-ups it is Spitzer.  It seems like Hillary did her job with the House candidates and it was Spitzers job to do more the state house candidates.

Here in the reddest of the red states, we held onto our two democratic seats even after the President flew down here and campaigned.

Why are Hill's 3 seats in NY worth a "no coattail" and "helps no one" and Bayh's 3 seats make Him the MAN....my niece goes to school in upstate NY and she said that the problem up there was that few locals on the ground knew HOW to get up signs or canvass effectively etc. and that Hillary's people were lent to local races and then had to hand feed ideas to people....it takes time to build up a good group of experienced people - thats WHY they are called experienced!!!!! WE FREAKIN' WON THIS TIME - BE HAPPY!!

This argument is a bit ridiculous. Bill Clinton showed up everywhere to campaign for Congressional candidates, and Hillary gave over $5 million dollars. Certainly she could have spent more of her warchest on other candidates, but doesn't the real question lie with the donors who gave her the money?

I don't know what happened in the State Senate. If you read Steve Gilliard's blog, it looks like there was some tacit deal where the WFP agreed not to aggressively challenge Republicans in exchange for support for some of the WFP's priorities (notably a minimum wage increase).

The only more Hillary could have done would have been to campaign harder against Reynolds or Walsh. I can't remember her schedule though. I think she campaigned against one but not the other.

Hillary also gave millions to the DSCC, and it's pretty clear the DSCC needed every penny they could get to win Virginia, and to a lesser extent Missouri and Montana (closer but cheaper).

It feels like a lot was left on the table, but everyone did their part.

Where the heck did she spend $29 million?

I live in NYC and I saw very few ads for Hillary.  Yes, she could have won easily with no ads at all, but she certainly didn't buy $29 million of airtime.  I feel like there must be more to the story.

As we've discussed in other threads, the State Senate is a pretty complex topic.  I think Spitzer will be a great reformer, but you can't take on everything at once.  I think we'll be okay.

Get a grip. Hillary Clinton spent 5 million on other candidates. For a woman who in all likelihood is running for President to part with 5 million is considerable. She did what any smart politician in her position would do, spending disproportionately in order to secure the biggest win imaginable. The size of her New York victory has a direct corollary in how seriously people will take her incipent Presidential campaign. This is what George W. Bush pulled off in his Texas reelection in 1998, which layed out the groundwork for his capture of the Presidency in 2000. All this finger wagging is ridiculous. We just won control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1994. Why don't you spill some ink on what our Democratic agenda for moving the country forward should be and stop attacking Hillary Clinton? I swear, if you aren't lacerating fellow Democrats for not following in lock step with your ideological pronouncements I honestly have no idea what you would do with yourself.

Once again, the complete lack of understanding of NYS politics is incredible.  There is almost no local Democratic structure to support the three candidates who were close but lost.  As you move east in upstate NY, you get more local Democrats - and those three candidates were able to get over the hump.  When you learn that all these seats were drawn to be reliably Republican, taking 3 of 6 is a remarkable accomplishment.  Clinton deserves credit, Spitzer deserves credit, all six candidates deserve credit, and all NYS Democrats deserve credit.  Stop all the blame BS.

While Senator Clinton probably could have spread the wealth more, I can't help but think that this post is more motivated by her not helping Ned Lamont more than anything she may or may not have done in New York.

Hillary Clinton should not be president for one simple reason:  she is an immediate family member of another President.  Allowing members of a previous President's immediate family to become president within, oh, say 25 years of their relative's term is fundamentally unhealthy for a republic.  I call everyone's attention to the historical experiences of the Venetian and Florentine Republics.

I realize that this rule deprives us of Hillary's clear intelligence.  It all would have spared us W.

I cannot and will not support Hillary for this reason alone.  The health of the Republic is far more important than party.

BC

1932-1908=24years.

i think ken mehlmann just resigned because someone found out that he is gay and they were threatening to leak the story.

wow, what a wierd party the GOP was under the bush republicans. they didn't get anything done except to eff things up .

is kennie going to be a butcher now? I heard theres a great opening in a kroger in scranton

I think we're assuming a lot when we think Hillary should have had coattails or gotten a blue wave going in NY etc. Still this statement here sums up the problem with her candidacy:

at the end of the day, despite all the money raised and all the campaigns she did events for, her name on the ticket in New York state helped no one but herself.

If she runs, it will be about her, about Oprah-esque navel-gazing and not about policy. This is the absolute wrong time to conduct a candidacy on the basis of personality--bad for the country, bad for our values. I thkink she has a bet than 50-50 chance of winning, but she will need to work overtime to make the campaign about something other than press titillation about her "unique" story angle. Worse, I'm convinced she actually would like that state of affairs.

One knew all wanted about Hillary is her conduct in 2004. She did not do much to try to win the 2004 election for the democrats despite the fact that it was one of the most important elections in the last 20 years. She put herself above the party and the country.

Not to mention she put herself above the country when she refused to say anything bad about the Iraq war until it was too late and even then she offers not a tinge of regret.

She was a very good first lady and was such an asset to the country compared to a stepford mom like Laura Bush. As a senator, she seems to be doing pretty good in the routine day to day work and leading the fight for increasing the min wage and I hear she wants to reform the consultants problem the Dems have.

BUt as a LEADER, she has not done enough to deserve our consideration for the President of the United States. And it all goes back to 2004 where she seemed more concerned with positioning herself for 2008 than doing her best to oust Bush.

Wes Clark in 2008 because he's the ONLY top flight Dem that can effectively compete and win in ALL 50 states !

No other Dem can do so as effectively....and WIN !

This is positively creepy, to spend this much money against a no-name opponent in a race that was a lock since the day it was announced.

Does she really think that deluging NY State and parts of the surrounding states with this much advertising and campaign expenditures is the best way to secure her nomination and the presidency and the best use of this money? Or is she so massively and psychotically insecure that she felt the need to eliminate even the slightest shred of doubt as to her reelection chances?

I mean, this sort of behavior is pretty much along the same psychiatric lines as a deranged girlfriend (or boyfriend) calling his/her girlfriend/boyfriend every 5 minutes all day long to make sure that they still love them. The woman is NUTS!!!

And selfish, given how little time or effort she expended helping other Dems get elected at the local, state or national level. Holy Joe might have appreciated this, but we're never going to forget what she did to Lamont--or Kerry.

Given this, the whole flag burning and video game thing, voting for the war and still never saying that she regrets it, and Bill's suck-up to the Bushes, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe, just maybe, some of those right-wing Clinton haters from the 90's just might have been onto something after all...

Hold on, Matt, I'm an upstate blogger and I have no love for Hillary.  But let's think about what you just wrote "we picked up just three House seats and one state Senate seat." Just? three House Seats?  Out of nine Republican House seats in the whole state?  That's pretty good, if you ask me.

The people from NY-29 I've talked to said Hillary could have helped more.  But Bill came in the day before the election and that's certainly a start.

As for the State Senate, that's Spitzer's responsibility, not hers.

Make no mistake -- Hillary could have done more.  But let's be realistic.

What the fuck do you want her to do? Wave a magic wand and make Dems. win everywhere in NY? She gave a $1 million to the NY party, that's more than enough.

I'm sorry Ned Lamont lost too, Matt. But you're going to have to get over it.

I don't think this is a phenomenon specifically connected with Hillary. We have had the same problem in Connecticut, as you know.

In the bluest states, it was the hardest to kick out the conservatives.

She was a very good first lady and was such an asset to the country compared to a stepford mom like Laura Bush. As a senator, she seems to be doing pretty good in the routine day to day work and leading the fight for increasing the min wage and I hear she wants to reform the consultants problem the Dems have.

I keep wanting to like her again, and then she:

1. co-sponsors an abridgement of 1st amendment rights just to look "bipartisan" or something (this is the Flag Burning deal)

2. refuses to debate Jonathan Tasini before the primary

3. waffles about maybe sometimes some torture could be okay

4.  ...i forget what progressive-stabbing remark she made last week...

Credit where credit is due:

I'm out of state right now, but my friends in Sch'dy saw her speaking (supporting energy policy change, good), prob'ly on her way up to campaign for Gillibrand.  

But for president?  No support from me.  I was tempted to vote Hawkins, as well, but didn't.  

Feingold, yes, Clark, yes...  or how about a Woolsey-Olbermann ticket?

Did Hillary's % of the vote increase but the % of "lesser" Democratic candidate NOT increase in ANY State Senate or US House district? And if so, might that State Sen. candidate or House candidate not have been good, and nothing Hillary did could have helped? I honestly don't know. Those aren't rhetorical questions!

*Just what IS a coat tail effect? Is it something verifiable?* (It always strikes me as a pretty damn nebulous and thus potentially unhelpful concept, frankly. But I might just be slow.)

I'm assuming it's described as a phenomenon that's grounded in subjective perception mostly. Maybe not. Is it more or less: When candidates "lower" on the ballot are presumed to be benefiting in the number of votes cast for them in light of an increase in the number (or percentage?) of votes in a re-election of a major candidate "higher" on the ballot (and of the same party, obviously) over that major candidate's previous effort.

I can't believe that she spent that much money on her re-election.  She probably could have won handily just by getting free TV time on local news all over the state.  

Hey, Matt. I read you every day and I'll see you at Yearly Kos, but take it easy!  I like Hillary, but I do think that she needs take a strong stand against the Iraq war or be a major player in fixing it. She's brilliant and a hard worker.  I suspect that the money she spent was money she will not need to spend in an 08 run, and she will be able to focus on other parts of the country.

The fact that she has worldwide respect is no small issue for us.  GO HILLARY!

Terry Olson

Matt, I've admired your energy, dedication, sincerity, and integrity.

But you are WAY off base here.  

Hillary spread a LOT of money, goodwill, starpower, and positive energy in a lot of NY races.  There were NINE GOP seats in play; we win 3 of them, based on grassroots and local hard work, in upstate districts where people turn and spit when they hear Hillary's name.

Come on, Matt.  Be fair.  You have been carrying a HUGE carpetbag full of resentment against her for awhile now, admit it.  You're biased.

I realize Lamont could have used more of everything from a lot of people in the DNC and DLC, but we have to accept the fact that the GOP turned out its awesome fundraising machine and spent BIG TIME for the Lieberpunk.  They stabbed what could have been a solid candidate for them (based on his debate performance) in the back to help the Lieberpunk.

It would have taken a candidate with a lot more spunk, verve, and cojones than Lamont to beat the GOP-Lieberpunk machine in CT this cycle.

Let's focus on how we will take them down in 2012, not how we tear down, kill, and eat our own best and brightest because they weren't dead solid perfect.

There is no basis for criticizing Senator Clinton. Her generosity was overwhelming. Of course she is planning a run for the Presidency. If she were an idiot, she would have run a bargain campaign; given MOST of her money away; and ended up without the massive database she now has.  And she would not achieve her goal to be President.  Below, you can read an outline of her contributions to helping the Democratic Party win the House and the Senate. Instead of ripping her apart, how about thanking her?  Does anyone in these blogs ever thank Senator Clinton?  

Hillary contributed $3.3 million in direct contributions to help elect Democrats.

She gave $2.35 million from her own campaign committee to the Democratic Senate and Congressional Campaign committees.

She contributed $650,000 in direct contributions to candidates from HILLPAC.

She raised more than $21 million for 145 Democrats in 39 states.

While campaigning for her own reelection, Hillary headlined 131 events in 57 cities on behalf of other Democrats.

Her extensive New York get-out-the-vote campaign with regional staff, mail, and telephone calls helped Democrats in targeted races, including three newly-elected Democratic members of Congress who replaced Republicans: Michael Arcuri, Kirsten Gillibrand and John Hall.

Her GOTV program also helped effect historic change in state and county legislatures in New York.

Hillary contributed and raised $550,000 for the New York Democratic Party, and made $96,000 in direct contributions to New York candidates through HILLPAC-NY.

She headlined events raising another $600,000 for New York candidates. She made 45 appearances with state candidates, recorded robo-calls for them, and sent emails and letters of support.

LINK FOR THE ABOVE POST

Senator Clinton's "Heroes At Home Initiative"

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the DoD Authorization conference report finalized today includes major elements of Senator Clinton's Heroes at Home initiative aimed at enhancing support and services for U.S. troops transitioning back home after deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Clinton's amendment will assist military service members of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) with readjustment to work, the problems of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health issues, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The initiative, which is supported by the National Military Family Association and the Wounded Warrior Project, also provides support to their family members. The DoD Appropriations bill included $3 million to provide initial funding for Heroes at Home.

"With this legislation, the hundreds of thousands of troops who have rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan, including thousands of courageous men and women from New York, will have better access to the support they need as they transition home. Once this bill is signed by the President, it is my hope that the increasing numbers of military service members surviving these conflicts will receive the necessary readjustment support," Senator Clinton said. "Many service members face readjustment challenges after war, such as medical, mental health, relationship, and work problems. Family members also are affected by the transition as they struggle to reconnect with their war heroes, some who may be deployed two, three, if not more times."

Heroes at Home centers around Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partnerships with employers and community organizations in acknowledgement of the fact that despite more services and resources being offered at DOD facilities, VA hospitals, and Vet Centers, returning service members are often still reluctant to go to traditional mental health clinics owing to stigma and concerns about confidentiality and their military careers. Only 29% of the approximately 500,000 separated OIF and OEF veterans have sought VA health care services, including mental health services. Last month, a GAO report found that only 22% of OIF and OEF service members who may have been at risk for developing PTSD based on post deployment screenings were referred for further mental health evaluations. In another report from May 2005, the GAO identified that, despite DOD efforts, the needs of demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members for transition assistance were still unmet.

Specifically, the Senator's amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a special working group, partnering representatives from the public and private sectors to identify the needs of returning National Guard and Reserve members in their transition to civilian jobs after deployment, including members who have been injured while serving, and to develop recommendations on ways to improve assistance to them. Also, under the amendment, the existing Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force on Mental Health is charged with assessing mental health conditions, including PTSD, occurring service members, including the National Guard and Reserves, undergoing multiple deployments and with making recommendations for improving mental health services for them.

The amendment also calls for a study on the long-term physical and mental health consequences and rehabilitation needs of traumatic brain injured service members. To further assist the mushrooming number of traumatic brain injured service members and their families, this amendment also establishes a TBI Family Caregiver Training Curricula for health professionals at DOD and VA hospitals, who would use the curricula to teach family members important skills for caring for their loved ones suffering from TBI when they go home.

According to a March 2006 study, 19% of Iraq veterans and 11% of Afghanistan veterans reported mental health problems. Among the OIF and OEF veterans seeking care at VA hospitals, nearly a third have been diagnosed with mental disorders, with over 40% of those PTSD. Another report found that 10% to 30% of National Guard members come home from Iraq searching for work. Others return to civilian jobs dissatisfied with old tasks that pale in comparison to wartime responsibilities. In addition to these challenges, a large number of service members are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with life-threatening brain injuries from roadside blasts that can cause brain damage. It is estimated that TBI affects more than 25% of bomb blast survivors - a percentage thought to be higher than in any other past US conflict, making TBI the "signature" injury of Iraq. The diffuse but debilitating symptoms of TBI can leave service members with cognitive and emotional problems, including the inability to adapt to civilian life. However, TBI frequently goes undiagnosed because returning troops may not realize they suffered a concussion or may not show visible signs of injury.

Senator Clinton is committed to helping our troops when they return from active duty. She is an original co-sponsor of the Healing Invisible Wounds Act that protects PTSD compensation, enhances counseling and readjustment services available to National Guard and Reserve members returning from combat, and authorizes additional funding for Vet Centers. Earlier this year, Senator Clinton joined with the NASD Foundation, members of the armed services and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to launch a new campaign to deliver financial education tools and training to members of the military and their spouses. She also authored legislation with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) that requires the Department of Defense to provide consumer education for members of the armed forces and their spouses. In addition, the House and Senate have approved legislation she introduced with Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) to protect military personnel against individuals using deceitful practices to sell financial products. This legislation is headed to the President's desk to be signed into law.