On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos

As Todd alluded to, it may take a bit of time for folks to recover from the late nights, early mornings and near-constant action of the 2007 Yearly Kos convention, but I as I've begun to digest some of what I saw, I'd like to lay out a few thoughts over the coming days in addition to my normal blogging on other topics.

To begin, I'd like to take a look at what Hillary Clinton had to say when pressed about her decision to accept campaign contributions from federal lobbyists -- a choice that puts her at odds with her two leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Clinton has caught a lot of flak for having said in defense of her position on this matter that "a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." I'd like to come back to that in a moment. But before then, I'd like to speak to an earlier statement she made that was, in a sense, even more telling.

In response to a query about her stance on accepting contributions from federal lobbyists, particularly in comparison with Edwards' stance, Clinton said, "I think it's a position that John has certainly taken" -- a statement that was met with laughter by the audience. This initial response to a question from debate moderator Matt Bai seemed to indicate that it was a question that Clinton was totally unprepared for, one that she had to eat up 10-15 seconds thinking about by throwing out an asinine truism. For a candidate who is not seemingly caught off guard often, it was interesting to find her unable to immediately grasp a strong retort. I don't know if she was unprepared to take this question or just couldn't remember her talking points on this particular issue. But it seemed to undercut the notion that she is a perfectly prepared candidate who is almost impossible to vanquish during a debate (an expectation that is perhaps unfairly high but one that many had seemed to hold).

In a sense, it seems that the failure to quickly respond in a meaningful way is more problematic for Clinton than her seeming defense of lobbyists (even if that defense will be used subsequently in television ads and direct mail pieces). For one, while she doesn't outright say it, the contributions made by lobbyists, themselves, wield less influence than the 10 or 20 or 100 accompanying checks that the lobbyists bundle together for candidates. What's more, Clinton is right that there are some lobbyists who are indeed working on behalf of good causes, and as such it is perhaps not inappropriate to accept contributions from them. Certainly this is not an answer that works particularly well on a political level, but it is one that at least has a basis in logic (and suggests at least some level of thought). Merely throwing out words like "I think it's a position that John has certainly taken" -- and in doing so at least suggesting that you haven't fully thought about an issue that is clearly on the radar in the presidential race -- does not. And as a result, at least some of the Clinton's luster, particularly that she is a candidate who may not always excite but will rarely if ever let down, may have been lost this weekend.

Just to add a couple of thoughts... In the comments there seem to be people taking exception with my contention that this was a flub, that instead it was a joke and people were laughing with her, not at her. As Matt Yglesias put it yesterday, "I promise you it was totally clear that the audience (myself included) was laughing with her" (emphasis original). I don't think it was "totally clear that the audience... was laughing with her" -- I got the sense from talking with others in the audience (of which I, too, was a part) that at least some were laughing at her instead, indicating the entire audience did not, in fact, take it to be a joke. That said, clearly the entire audience didn't take it to be serious, either, so there's more room for interpretation. The words above represent my take on how things played out, but feel free to read the moment another way if you'd like.



Display:


if you have to explain (3.00 / 2)

lobbyists to people in iowa she's toast.

I looked up the nurses and social workers lobby and they spend in a year what Northrup grumman spends in a week.

it's laughable to try to equate the cash poor "good lobbys" with the ones on the top ten list ..


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:13:43 PM EST

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Yeah, but the charge from your guy Hedgewards and his buddy I'll Bomb Ya is that accepting money from ALL lobbyists is evil. It seems they don't mind shortcutting the valuable contributions these lobbyists for nurses, etc. offer.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (3.00 / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

no thanks...


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Do it anyway.


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (none / 0)

Making up names for candidates?

Grow up or stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, whichever is appropriate.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you have to explain (1.00 / 1)

She's going to regret that answer too.

Because everybody's going to start looking at which lobbyists are giving to Hillary and, I'm guessing, very few of them are nurses and teachers and the vast majority of them are in the financial services industry.

The former Cattle Futures Queen does represent Wall Street, after all.


by Bush Bites on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rightwing talking-point alert!!! (none / 0)

"The former Cattle Futures Queen does represent Wall Street, after all."

I see you've been reading one of Rush Limbaugh's old books.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, it sucks that the dominant frames about... (none / 0)

hillary are right-wing frames.  the fact that she lost control of her image is one of the reasons she's so vulnerable in the general election...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree.  She has relied on inevitability and an attachment to the Clitnon years in the 90s.

Hilllary Clinton is not inevitable. Ykos did all Dems a great favor by showing it.


by TomP on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:15:28 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I can tell you who is not going to get this nomination Obama and Edwards, who have decided to work in tandem to knock Hillary off.  The thing that bothers me is the snide remarks that each has made.  Today in additon to attacking Hillary, Edwards has attack Paula Deen who does a cooking show for getting a contract with Smithfield Foods.  Paula Deen is the nicest lady and it shows that Edwards is a snide little man who cannot sell himself unless he trashes women.  And as for the 2 years Senator from Illinois who thinks he knows everything about everything.  He should take a time out.  He has become an arrogant fool.  I guess its how you act when your losing that shows what you're really made of.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well, there's always 2012... (none / 0)

we're going to need a great candidate after 12 years of republican administrations and after another clinton has divided democrats again.

it's difficult to understand how you could appropriate the label of change yet support the status quo candidate...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:29:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well, there's always 2012... (none / 0)

Some times change means going back to what worked.  Clinton was a great president who appointed the best people and not the cronies that this administration seems to favor.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

facts (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/6/13816 /53522

Read my diary on eyewitnesses' impression on Hillary's performance at YKOS.

No spin, just facts.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:20:15 PM EST

there are over a hundred (3.00 / 1)

YouTubes with Hillary talking about lobbyists.

Am I not supposed to trust my own eyes?  


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (3.00 / 1)

That's right. It's clear that Hillary was booed when she said lobbyists have had no influence on her and her silly response, "it's a position that John has taken" was laughed at. VIDEO-Edwards Challenges Dems to Reject Lobbyist Donations: Hillary Refuses


by NCDemAmy on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

So Hillary was booed. What does that prove other than she sticks by her principles unlike Hedgewards and I'll Bomb Ya who both have questionable fundraising practices and don't mind a little pandering if it can make Hillary look bad. Both of these guys have plenty of soft points to exploit. And since they started this they can't really complain when the counterattack begins. And it will.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

Hillary will demonize Obama and Edwards?

Shocking.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary has principles??? (none / 0)

are these like her turning her back on just war traditions -- and her church?  or her penchant for secrecy?  or her hiding things that the courts and congress want?  are these the principles you speak of???


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there are over a hundred (none / 0)

Oh the hypocrisy runs rampant among these two. According to Murdock Obama and Edwards have taken his money.    


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (none / 0)

it is a FACT that those opinions belong to the people attributed (i assume anyway). That is the only FACT involved. It cannot be a FACT that someone did well or did not do well. Stop being crazy.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

um, anything on the substance?

This is a post Mike Allen could write.

Ron Fournier of the AP actually covered the issue in his article.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:21:10 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

what substance would you like to discuss?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is money from federal (3.00 / 2)

lobbyists different from Corporate CEOs, law firm partners, PACS, lobbyist's spouses, state lobbyists, hedge fund managers, etc.

The fact is campaign finance reform has been a an issue since Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and all these fixes are crap.

There is one only, and everybody knows it - public financing of campaigns.

Campaign finance reform that does not discuss public financing of coampaigns is simply a disingenuous wankfest.

This post does not even rise to that level.

Was the crowd llaughing with hillary or at her is big controversy that required an update.

Puhleeeaze.

I understand why Obana and Edwards are doing this. What I do not understand is the purpose of this post.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0)

but Edwards has never taken PAC money either !!!

CEOs are limited to maximums and if you don't take PAC money as Edwards has not since 1998 than you limit the influence of one person compared to another - but it's still not equal.

FYI - from my understanding Hillary, Obama and even Dodd have more contributions from wall street than  Edwards


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

PAC are capped too.

What's your point?

Lobbyists are capped too.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

My point as I said above is which PACs matter- especially with regard to Democratic primary politics interests.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Which pacs, which lobbyists.

The whole thing is a phony issue.

And this post, despite Singer's protest that  I misread his post, I refer again to whatr HE SAYS is important - foocuses on the phony nothingness of Clinton's delay in answering.

And we complain about the Media's triviality? About covering haircuts?

This is haircut coverage.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

you think her receiving money from Big Phrma is a phony concern?>


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

How much did Obama receive? Can you answer that or doesn't it matter?


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

I don't know.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Borrowed from hwc:


From insurance industry employees:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $341,240
Obama: $258,172

Dodd and Romney have received more from the insurance industry.

From pharmaceutical industry employees:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=F09

Clinton: $172,151
Obama: $160,572

Romney has received more from the pharmaceutical company employees.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

question- does it matter if they all commit the same bad act? not sure how you think that makes it ok or why if all of them doing it is somehow negates the point of whether or not they should be doing it? inother words- do you get that I am making an issue specific, not candidte specific argument?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

My position on this is simple and clear. I support any candidate's right to raise money from any LEGAL source. We are a nation of laws and I support them.

If you want to change the law so that campaigns for President are financed by the electorate I am willing to support that provided there are limitations on what we will pay for and how much.

But while the laws exist and as long as no candidate violates the law I will support any candidate's right to raise funds legally. Money is money. It all spends the same. Unless it is from an immoral source or used illegally I am not going to criticize anyone for obeying the law. If you have an issue with Hillary's contributions then provide substantive proof that it has in any way influenced her voting record. Otherwise be cool because what she is doing is LEGAL.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

So your answer is the Bushian response to when people asked about the ethics of Karl Rove- 'its legal."? Well thanks for the dodge but I was asking about ethics and politics, and more specifically the ethics of a Democrat taking money interest at odds with  Democratic Party constituencies. Like I said- your best bet is the quiet up and hope the real issue goes away, and instead fluff like this diary wins out. Otherwise, you got problems in a Democratic primary with your sort of argument.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

I gave you my opinion of the matter. I did not dodge your question at all. If you don't like my answer fine, but don't accuse me of not answering or dodging your question. So nice of you to link me with Bush and Rove. How very asshole of you. Stop making shit up!


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

If I asked you what color is the sky at noon in  Texas, and you respond back the sky is black at night and I can imagine the guy being a many different colors. You answered a question, but you didn't answer the question asked. The asshole thing to do is to pretend that you did rather than admit that you didn't. Saying its your opinion doesn't change that fact. And calling me asshole doesn't either. This discussion with you is exactly why I say to Big Democrat many of you aren't interested all in the issues- just your candidate winning. I get that. I even get why you had to assume I was an Obama supporter. Afterall, that's all that matters to your way of thinking.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: responding to the question you made up (none / 0)

If I asked you what color is the sky at noon in  Texas, and you respond back the sky is black at night and I can imagine the guy being a many different colors. You answered a question, but you didn't answer the question asked. The asshole thing to do is to pretend that you did rather than admit that you didn't. Saying its your opinion doesn't change that fact. And calling me asshole doesn't either. This discussion with you is exactly why I say to Big Democrat many of you aren't interested all in the issues- just your candidate winning. I get that. I even get why you had to assume I was an Obama supporter. Afterall, that's all that matters to your way of thinking.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

to add to my point- you make the assumption i support obama right? you must - but i let you do that because it was the only way i could get you beyond attacking first. one of my problem with obama's healthcare plan is that it uses the healthcare industry's definition of the word "universal healthcare" I don't acribe any dark motive to that- but I do see the undue influence of having these people around. That is even if Clinton or Edwards or Obama or Mother Thersea had the purist motive on the planet, money would influence them because money means access to things like defining the prhase "universal healthcare" and what the means for average americans.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

final point- do you know much legislation was drafted by lobbying orgs and that language was adopted in its entirety by congress? i know it was horrible under the GOP, and I am not all that convinced that K street doesn't have that influence over the present congress. I wish I were more hopeful, but some of my lack of faith comes  out of seeing people gloss over the issue in favor of their candidate of the moment. do that writ large, and you see how the problem occurs.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Excellent--thank you for that information.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

by the way- difference between haircut and this- is interest of the parties. the haircut was singular, this is an issue of systemic nature of big money being involved in politics. we can't get rid of it but i dont see why we should condone clinton taking money from big prhma either. w/o political pressure why should she or any candidate in the future not take money adverse to democratic positions ?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

You want to discuss this?

this is an issue of systemic nature of big money being involved in politics.

Write a post about it. This covers the delay in answering. It does not cover the issue.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Tried that yesterday. Got a bunch of Hillary supporters swarming the diary and it went no where. False frames: "well you are against big business" or "you are against all lobbying" or other such silliness. Or the one I love- "you hate clinton" Nevermind I voted for her as my senator. Or, she's pragmatic, this is politics, be realistic. Etc and so forth. Another I love- trust her on that she won't be influenced by this. When backed into a corner- the common refrain was "well I don't really care about this issue." What did you write the other day? Is mydd interested in issues? Prolly, not so much as it is in spin.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama have taken money from Rupert Murdock, what makes them holier than Hillary?  


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

I don't care about whether they were or weren't laughing at her. I do care about the issue.

I think there are separate considerations- some legal, some political and some ethical. We can't do anything about the legal, but we can discuss the political and ethical.

And to use an extreme, patronage system that used define Democratic machine politics was old too before we got rid of it. So- not sure what you mean about the movie reference.

I understand your wider point that we need overall reform. However the problem with this is legal. I can't see the S Ct endorsing public finance alone without it being voluntary by the candidates- do you? This isn't my area of law so I'm not certain on this point.

What I am certain about is that political and ethical pressure should be placed on candidates to get them to not accept certain types of money.

As you say- politics is pander. I agree- I want them to pander to us, the Democrats, and what we stand for. Money from Big Phrma and Big Insurance is not what the Democrats stand for. It's blood money plain and simple.

You speak of politics being about who gets to define the debate. Well, look at universal healthcare- whatever its merits- the fact is we are allowing Big Health to define the debate before we even start a new debate. This is unacceptable to me. We can't change it legally, but we can make ethical and political pressure a tool for getting done what we can't get done legally.  


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Oh I agree.

But that is easy to remedy - the pbulic financing will be a very generous amount or the amount raised by the highest amount raised by another candidate, or even 110% of the highest amount raised.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

On the legal front, I don't see that surviving the first amendment scrutiny- especially with this S Ct. As I said this isn't my era of expertise.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Why? I do not see any basis for a legal challenge at all.

It is voluntary.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

hasn't the trend been people opting out?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

Because of the low level of public funds offered.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

You're right people have been opting out of matching funds so they can raise what they like. What I don't like is for the two guys who are losing to trash the candidate who is winning.  Senator Obama charges for free events and sells campaign buttons and other trinkets.  When the people buy the campaign paraphinalia he calls them small doners which makes his list of small donations 3 times as large as Hillary's.  There is alot wrong with campaign funding today but I think Obama and Edwards should check their own glass houses before throwing any more stones.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

the point being that if there is no political or ethical pressure-t hen why would any candidate accept such a system? what incentive is there for them to do so?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

The fact your opponent will be matched dollar for dollar with federal funds pretty much eliminates all incentive to raise money privately.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

I see your point. But that still raises issues of timing - ie Kerry waiting for funding as I remember, but those are minor quibbles. Let me ask you this- do you have faith it will happen? I don't.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think this spat (none / 0)

on lobbyists will change anything?


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think this spat (none / 0)

prolly not- but i do know ignoring it won't do anything either. candidates need to be called on anti democratic contributors.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you think this spat (none / 0)

about the politics. i am not the best to ask. i am losing faith that things will improve in this country. there is a tipping point where society's dont come back. i don't know if we have reached it yet, but the influence of the forces i see in our society- money, lack of interest in real change where needed etc aren't good signs.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

"How is money from federal [...] lobbyists different from Corporate CEOs, law firm partners, PACS, lobbyist's spouses, state lobbyists, hedge fund managers, etc. [...] I do not understand is the purpose of this post"

Before you slam my posts, perhaps it would at least be worth it to read them in their entirety. I write,

[T]he contributions made by lobbyists, themselves, wield less influence than the 10 or 20 or 100 accompanying checks that the lobbyists bundle together for candidates.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the substance. But politics is not only substance. Perhaps it should be, perhaps it shouldn't be; but it isn't. It's also about perceptions and people's feelings about candidates. And my sense, from being in the hall and from talking to others who were also in the hall, was that Hillary seemed unprepared for a fairly standard question, which to me raises questions about whether or not she is as well-polished as many believe her to be.


Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.
by Jonathan Singer on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you mean policy (none / 0)

like having a healthcare plan?  (snark)


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

And this is exactly why she is particularly vunerable on this. Not because of lobby money alone,b ut because of her own inability to say anything to attack money interests that are supporting her.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

What is the policy dicussed in the post?


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

the policy is how can you have a conversation about policy regarding healthcare with the discussion already tainted by people aren't just at the table but they script the conversation


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

That is not in this post.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you mean policy (none / 0)

prolly right- i am just piggybacking to what i thinkt he real issue is


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (none / 0)

Why did you cut out the opening line of that paragraph?

Sonce it is the point of my criticism it is really something for you to cut out the idea that I am objecting to.

Put in the whole excerpt.

What was more important to you in this exchange? What did you write was more important?

Don;t rewrite your post here in the comments.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

"which to me raises questions about whether or not she is as well-polished as many believe her to be."

If I were her opponent I don't think I would count on that assumption.

Going into this convention Hillary was the least favorite candidate there except maybe Gravel. She walked into the lion's den even after someone tried to poison her appearance by announcing something that wasn't true. I think considering the circumstances she did very well.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is money from federal (none / 0)

One of the things that disturbs me about the campaign money is that the candidate gets to keep quite alot of it after the election.  Its really hard to believe.  I read that Kerry had 15 Million left over after the 04 election which was his to keep or give to another candidate of his choice.  There is something really wrong with this if this is true.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

You do realize that Singer risks the wrath of Jerome by taking on his girl Hillary don't you?

Hardly something that can be done by thinking about it long and hard in advance.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

I don't think the problem was her being unprepared for the question I think the problem was that she knew nobody was going to like her answer and tried a quick dodge. When she found out they weren't going to let her get away with it she simply fessed up, noting that all lobbyists aren't big corporate interest.

OK Clinton maybe thats a fair point so how bout for now on you pledge to only take contributions from the lobbyists the don't represent corporate or special (non-progressive) interests.

I think its telling that Obama can still out-fund raise her without taking this corporate cash.


by wiretapp on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:21:31 PM EST

Exactly (3.00 / 0)

this wasn't the MSM debate.

the moderator came back to her and made her actually answer the question.

Something CNN and MSNBC don't do.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

this isn't a thread about your distaste for the media. Lets keep it on subject here.


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

And when she was boo'ed, she also knifed progressives by saying something mean like "I was expecting this" - etc. Anyone have that exact quote?
This forum really touched a nerve - and her mean side was exposed.  Maybe she really did throw a lamp at Bill.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Uhh from my understanding when she said that it was said in a joking manner and the audience laughed.

Her mean side indeed.


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree with the dictator- it was funny. The answer that got her booed was more sad than funny- nevertheless, after you have dealt with a year long impeachment hearing on your husband for lying about cheating on you in the Oval Office- its hard to get phased by a couple booes. Shes not my favorite, but ya can't deny she's a badass.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's another word (none / 0)

for a power-hungry candidate who gets in bed with a man who led the cheers for her husband's impeachment - but it's not "badass."


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's another word (none / 0)

oh annefrank. There you go again


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's another word (none / 0)

Whhhaaaatt?! I'm only posting facts.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Liberals prefer to be perfect and lose.  I want to win this election because we cannot afford another 8 years with the likes of Giuliani whose idea of healthcare is that we all buy our own.  No employer based healthcare, no medicare, no veterans healthcare.  We are all on our own.  Is this not a bigger issue?   Perhaps the reason that corporations and yes even Ken Starr is contributing to Hillary's campaign is because maybe they are sick of the status quo too.  Corporations were not exactly hurting during Bill Clinton's presidency, nor were the little guys.  Perhaps the Dems have the answer and everyone is hopping on the bandwagon.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:05:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

liberals have sacrificed a lot of their... (none / 0)

principles over the years to win.  that's just an idiotic statement.  and there is a bigger issue at stake here: whether we undermine the constitution, or at least its spirit, by nominating another clinton seeking to continue the clinton dynasty.  concentrating political power at the federal level in the hands of two families is not only royalist, its dangerous.  greater principles mean that we can't support hillary, no matter what she promises.  if democrats make the mistake of nominating her (and i'm sure they will, all of this was said about kerry in 2004), they cannot blame the principled americans who turn their back on democrats for hillary's inevitable defeat...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liberals have sacrificed a lot of their... (none / 0)

Dynasty?  Bill Clinton was a great president who created 22 Million jobs, balanced the budget and gave us a huge surplus.  I want Hillary because she can bring in the same people to fix the mess Bush has left us.  We cannot afford an unknown like Obama right now.


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 02:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

agreed- politically speaking the best thing she can hope is that people move on. this is a loser for her and she's got to know that.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya takes corporate cash. He just takes it discretely so he can pretend to look pure with no attachments. He ain't no poster child for pure in politics even if he says he is.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I'll Bomb Ya

Not Obama's position on Pakistan -- f*** off!!


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Isn't that sweet of ya.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Not intended to be, I assure you.


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Wiretap - Lobbyists have contributed to less than 1% of her entire funds raised.

Obama takes money from Chicago lobbysists, just not federal, and has taken lots of money from large banks.

Edwards takes hedgefund money and trial lawyer money.

Hillary was honest about it, the others tried to blur the lines, to which Kucinich made sure he would comment.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

True, and I'm sure Obama is getting some lawyer money as well.

But if you look at average donation amounts its clear that she is getting the bigger bucks from fewer individuals who would theoretically have more influence with her.


by wiretapp on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

"who would theoretically have more influence with her."

But that isn't proof of any untoward activity.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

And I'm sure the fundraisers by Murdoch and News Corp aren't "proof of any untoward activity" either - yet.
BAWAAAHAHAHAHA!!

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The summation of this diary (none / 0)

Look this diary isn't really about the merits of her answer so i won't discuss that here. (Its be discussed ad nausem elsewhere.)

This diary is about the way she answered the question and the summation is, Hillary Clinton is funny...thats bad.

I certainly don't think this was a hit piece but was this really a diary worthy?

It seems even if I charitably read your diary, and being really generous on my part, then its ultimate conclusion is "Hillary is not perfect...sometimes she pauses!" (Cue evil music in background)


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:22:48 PM EST

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

I think its absolutely diary worthy. The "thats cetainly a position John has taken" is the first time she really seemed unprepared and cornered in the Debates. Although i must admit that the only reason it IS diary worthy is because she has done so well up to this point.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

The point is - IMHO - regardless of her performance in other debates - the media declares her the "winner" and "presidential" - as Murdoch as instructed.  Hillaries aren't accustomed to analyses of Hillary without a corporate media slant. But most online progressives have given her a low grade for forum performance and her blah, blah, blah in breakout to decrease the number of questions.

Why would a candidate get in bed with a man who led the cheers to impeach her husband?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

from what i've seen a lot of people in the blogging community liked Clintons performance.

When bloggers said she hit the health care question out of the park was that Murdoch too?


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The summation of this diary (none / 0)

Hillary is a woman therefore she has to be perfect or its back to the kitchen.  ha ha


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:07:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary knows where the kitchen is??? (none / 0)


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary knows where the kitchen is??? (none / 0)

Good one lolol


by changehorses08 on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG!!!! (none / 0)

She's not perfect!


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:27:24 PM EST

Re: OMG!!!! (none / 0)

I know, I've been crying most of the day. My heart is crushed.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

The Netroots wouldn't have been doing their job.


by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (3.00 / 1)

Still she did more good then bad overall. This'll be the most hostile crowd she'll face during the primaries. She didn't win the debate, But this should have been her most difficult challenge until the caucus itself. And if this is the worst mistake she made... Then I'm impressed.

I think more people there thought more positive about her after YK appearances then before. And that was what she had to do.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

this is perhaps the sadest comment along this thread. a  modicum of actually having to answer questions relevant to most normal people is consider the toughest she will face. well there you have it in a nutshell. i would hope this isn't the toughest any of them will have to face.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she didn't screw up at YearlyKos (none / 0)

That would've been a nice sentiment if I wasn't primarily talking in terms of hostility of the crowd. Obama and Edwards were playing a home game. Clinton was facing her most difficult audience. They'll all be very busy answering questions relevant to most normal people for months and months to come in town halls and other forums as well.

And I'm also intrigued. What should be more difficult having to answer questions relevant to most normal people for any politician.? Seems to me that should the most important task any politician should have during election time. So what would be more important for a politician to do and what should be a bigger challenge?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

She was honest that she will take money directly from lobbyists, including the corporate ones.  But I cannot support a candidate who does this.  


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:27:33 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

since you said that then read this.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obam as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen. -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 2)

Obama's not my candidate.  John Edwards is.

Thanks for the links though.


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

So its ok to take it from hedgefunds and trial lawyers


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes it is proper (none / 0)

To take donations from those who work on Wall Street.  Edwards doesn't take donations directly from a hedge fund.   Folks at his former employer, Fortress, do contribute to his campaign, and well aware that he has said that hedge fund managers will have to ante up more investments for universal health care, which means he will repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making over 250K.  

Further, all of the candidates, although I cannot say for Mike Gravel, take donations from lawyers.  

If you think Dennis K is pure in not receiving donations from Wall Street workers, go look at his recent 2Q report.


by benny06 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's lobbyists world (none / 0)

>>>>>Some of Obama's K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama's image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.'s influence business.

When Obama declared his presidential candidacy in February, he said he would re-engage Americans disenchanted with business-as-usual in Washington who had turned away from politics.

"And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void," said Obama. "The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter; they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page."

In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."

Dutta declined to discuss his work.

Williams, of Credit Suisse, said that asking for access to lobbyists' networks is not the same as asking lobbyists to raise money for Obama.

"When they say, `Give us access to your network,' it's not so we can raise money from them; it's so we can have conversations with them and see whether [members of the networks] are interested in what we're saying," he said. "They may decide they are not interested."

Some lobbyists who favor Obama want to stay below the radar to avoid retaliation from rivals such as Clinton, Biden, and Dodd.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Thank you for the heads up with regard to The Hill article.  Obama is a sorry character.  He has certainly learned the ropes when it comes to lobbiests while professing to be holier than anyone else.  So he asks for money from lobiests' wives and takes influence from the lobbiests.  What this means is that in effect he is saying to the fat cats "I am your guy and I will do your bidding."  If you accept lobbiest money it is not necessarily a quid pro quo but if you take their influence then you have sold yourself to the highest bidder.


by changehorses08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Chances are that you wouldn't support her regardless of what she did or didn't do. We are talking less than 1% of her total contributions coming from lobbyists. That ain't exactly a lot of cash.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her answer completely undermines (3.00 / 3)

the rationale for having not only campaign finance reform, but ethics reform in government. Its that sweeping when you look at what she's saying - in a nutshell big money doesn't influence government.

She also indirectly equates the interests of groups like big pharma, banking interests with groups like unions, teachers, nurses etc. I'm sure they don't particularly like that comparison.

I'm not sure she really meant to go so far in her statements, but either way, she said it and its huge. Seems to go to Johnathan's idea that she just really wasn't prepared for the question and rushed out something quick, hoping it would work. Either she'll backtrack, which seems doubtful, or she is going to entrech herself in this rather extremist position (for the Democratic party).

Not a good move and certainly won't play well in NH or Iowa or probably anywhere else that gets wind of this. Guaranteed the other campaigns will make great use of this in the early primary states


by okamichan13 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:30:05 PM EST

Re: Her answer completely undermines (none / 0)

Obama and Edwards better hope their glass houses are strong enough to withstand a counterpunch.

For example, Obama's campaign has taken in more money from Pharmaceutical companies than Clinton's. By setting himself up on a pedestal, Obama becomes vulnerable to an hypocrisy attack.


by hwc on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's part of hillary's problem... (3.00 / 1)

she's the establishment candidate (on both sides).  it's incredibly hard for her to square the talk of a change election with running as a pseudo-incumbent.  give her her due, she's doing well at that for the moment.

i sat in the front row of the debate, to record it with a hdd camera.  strangely, dennis' wife also sat at our table.  she didn't look relaxed -- we aren't her "people," and if you were at the breakout and the debate (i recorded both) you definitely realized that her being there was supposed to be sufficient.

remember that her breakout ran late, meaning that we were all rushed to the grand ballroom.  but her next to last question in her session was whether she would overturn the clinton failures (dadt, nafta, welfare reform, the telecoms bill -- where she blamed al gore -- etc) and that seemed to throw her, too.

in the end, though, we have to accept that this is a very centrist candidate with a couple of liberal positions who really hasn't been challenged very much in her campaigns.  she's not exactly used to this.  she could play the victim as the first lady, but when conservatives finally come after her this time, she won't have the pink dress to hide behind.  if she does that, she looks weak.  if she's aggressive, she looks like a bitch.  and if she doesn't respond, she looks like a loser (kerry).  they have her boxed in...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:31:22 PM EST

Re: it's part of hillary's problem... (3.00 / 2)

conservatives finally come after her this time, she won't have the pink dress to hide behind

The only candidate I've seen in a pink dress is Giuliani.


by dblhelix on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's part of hillary's problem... (none / 0)

Maybe some of you should read this before you go on about what you think you know.

Speaking of Vice President Gore and the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

"...in many ways the father of this legislation because he's worked on it for more than 20 years, since he first began to promote what he called, in the phrase he coined, the Information Superhighway," said President Clinton."

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9603/telecom .html


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's part of hillary's problem... (none / 0)

But neither has Obama had any challenge in his single campaign. Guiliani was bigger then Jack Ryan and Lazio was more of a challenge then Keyes. And it's not as if Edwards has a big resumé with a single successful election either.

If you're not impressed with her responses, it would be only fair to note that none of the other candidates will actually do better in that regard either.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you got to be kidding... (none / 0)

obama took on the scions of the illinois democratic machine -- including those daley boys the clintons are so fond of.  he fought off a self-funder.  he organized the whole state -- and got red counties to vote for him the first time out!  hillary didn't do any of this.  the only thing she's taken on is loretta lynn...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you got to be kidding... (none / 0)

Now you're just overselling. But you're right he had a more difficult primary then is normal. I'll grant him that. But it's his most difficult test until now. If you're running for president a difficult primary should not be a grade A challenge. Especially if you've got as much raw talent as but as you do have a point, I'll amends.

Obama sole experience with electoral challenges comes from a difficult primary in his single state wide campaign.

As for turning red counties blue? come on, he was running against Alan Keyes, I mean John Spencer can be almost considered sane in comparison.

Now I do have tremendous respect for Obama as he's very talented and is currently competing on national level. But he's almost completely untested in the electoral arena, and it's silly to claim otherwise.

As candidates themselves their experiences are roughly equal. Hillary has two successful state wide elections, Obama had one successful state wide election with a difficult primary. One failed primary for the House. And he's won a couple of state senator ones.

What might or might not count for Hillary's experience with challenges are the 2 national and 6? state wide elections she experienced as a spouse and advisor. Some of which were challenging.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not really... (none / 0)

and i was thinking his most difficult election until now.  look, i'm not absolutely convinced that obama is "in it to win it."  he's a competitor, no doubt, but it just feels like they are building towards the future.

obama's popularity in red counties hasn't stopped once the election was over.  he's still incredibly popular in illinois -- all over illinois.

my point is that hillary's electoral experience is vastly overstated.  she had virtually no real competition in 2006, rode a democratic wave, and still underperformed a controversial, enigmatic candidate below her on the ballot.  i never felt like lazio rose to the level of a credible candidate, although he spent a boatload of money.  

i don't have a clue how to measure hillary's campaign experience as a spouse.  in my own dealings with her (about campaign matters), she seemed more interested in governance issues than political (campaign) issues.  she doesn't have bill's need to be loved -- and the ykos exchange demonstrated that.  in my own estimation, she wants to do the right thing (although i obviously disagree with her about what that is), but that's not how you win campaigns...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not really... (none / 0)

I don't know about her underperforming. While her candidates never really were on the same level as her that is a problem shared with most Dems on the state level. We can look the numbers don't show it at least.

Schumer  2004     with 71%      Senator
Spitzer    2006     with 69%      Governor
Clinton     2006      with 67%      Senator
Spitzer     2002     with 66%      Attorney General
Gore        2000     with 60%      President
Cuomo     2006     with 58%      Attorney General
Kerry        2004     with 58%      President
Clinton     2000      with 55%      Senator
Schumer  1998     with 55%      Senator
Spitzer    1998      with 48%      Attorney General
McCall      2002     with 34%      Governor
Vallone    1998      with 33%      Governor

Cuomo had Pyrro as a opponent and only got 58%, Kerry against Bush only got 58% as well. Schumer & Spitzer were also largely unopposed and she scored relatively similar. It looks she's performing solid and not particularly bad or good.

But for comparison we should also look at Obama;

Madigan           2006     with 72%     Attorney General
Obama              2004     with 70%     Senator
Durbin              2002     with 60%     Senator
Gore                 2000     with 56%     President
Kerry                2004     with 55%     President
Blagojevich       2002     with 52%     Governor
Blagojevich       2006     with 50%     Governor
Madigan           2002     with 50%     Attorney General
Moseley-Braun 1998      with 47%     Senator
Poshard           1998      with 47%      Governor
Santos             1998      with 38%     Attorney General

He obviously performed excellent. It would've been nice if we had another statewide data point from him from around 1998 till 2002 for comparison purposes. I couldn't find his state senate election results. It would've been interesting to see how he performed there relative to his predecessor.

I don't know how to rate her participation in her husbands campaigns either. Obviously she'll know better what to expect in form of physical and mental stress and their like. But seeing the difference in campaign styles it obvious that any experience learned will likely be organizational.

Hillary certainly has her problems that she needs to continue to work on, like her high negatives and her improvisation. She definitely isn't the natural talent Obama seems to be, but the numbers so far don't seem to disqualify her as of yet.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm not arguing that she's disqualified... (none / 0)

and you have to throw out lisa madigan's numbers since she not only ran against a republican lightweight that the party disowned, but someone who's wife worked for her (or her daddy, i don't recall specifically).  he was put up to it, in typical machine fashion.  my problem with hillary is not her percentage, but that she was at the top of the ticket, ran against a nobody, and spitzer still did better than she did (mostly because republicans did vote against her)...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not arguing that she's disqualified... (none / 0)

Yeah, it stays chicago after all. But Madigan no influence on my appriciation of Obama's percentage. I mean the next best after him is Durbin with 60% and the rest stays in the fifties.

as for Spitzer, thats not her underperforming but him overperforming. Spitzer was the AG, a position that seems to be designed to make you extremely popular in New York, ran against athe loser for the race for state Comptroller four whole years earlier. (just as big a nobody as the former major of Yonkers I'd say.) And outgoing Governor Pataki had an approval rating that would make Bush feel good about his.

And at 67% you can't say somebody really has people voting against her. Just like you have to look at madigan's numbers in context so do you have to look at Spitzers' Now if Cuomo's numbers were closer to her's and spitzer's ... But's he's running 10 points behind. And he didn't have a credible candidate running against him either.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she didn't hit her vote total targets... (none / 0)

but other than that, i don't disagree with you.  different perspectives, half full or half empty...


peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...
by bored now on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary comes cheap! (3.00 / 3)

Oh, c'mon, Jonathan, no one outside of the blogs gives a shit one way or another.  Ads?  Direct mail pieces?  pffft.

Unless a candidate or officeholder is CLEARLY corrupt, e.g., that guy in San Diego who had to resign, these contributions don't matter.  They are never an effective wedge-issue in campaigns against Republicans (unless, like I said, the person is clearly corrupt).  Rove may say corruption was a big issue, but it was, and is, the war.

Does anyone, outside of the roots, truly believe Hillary is going to be unduly influenced by lobbyists?  Really?  For a few hundred grand to a campaign, HRC is going to carry the water for the health care industry?  So for the price of a Ferrari, you can totally by the president of the United States?  Wow.  I guess I need to go back to being a lobbyist.

I used to be a lobbyist.  And I was never able to buy anyone off.  I guess I sucked at it.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:04:44 PM EST

Re: Hillary comes cheap! (none / 0)

I certainly hope you didn't tell your bosses you weren't any good at your job?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary comes cheap! (none / 0)

Amen.

People who complain about lobbyist typically don't understand what a lobbyist does.


by world dictator on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary comes cheap! (none / 0)

by the way- i used to work for a lobbying org in dc- not all are equal or the same. so when you say that- i assume you know that?


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary comes cheap! (none / 0)

Red herring to take away the simple fact that unions, nurses, and others on our side should have an advantage over corporations in the way the game is played.  

You see, the structure of the system actually favors our side but we're too cheap, lazy, and stupid to see it.  If every middle class and above member of a union would give $100, hell, fifty bucks to a political cause or candidate once a month, we'd dwarf the corporations in influence.

Fuck, even if ten percent of union members got involved in politics, we'd take over.  But they don't.  It's not just the unions, but the environmental, women's, gays, and everyone else ostensibly on our side.

Our side has the potential to be dominant but instead, we are lazy and tight.  You reap what you sow.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary comes cheap! (none / 0)

Thanks for the moment of sanity.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (none / 0)

So Hillary finally had a moment where she didn't have every little answer just right. Big whoop. It ain't like she pulled an Obomba or as if she had an I'm so pretty Edwards moment. She said something that someone disagreed with. Oh my. She is fallible. She isn't perfect. Now you want to hop on her for that? Give me a break.

This little flub that wasn't really a flub won't play in Peoria. It only plays in the netroots world of the far left. I don't care a bit where Hillary gets her money as long as she gets it legally. This lobbyist fluff up is not really news. Edwards and Obomba have their own fundraising inconsistencies. Do they really want to drag this shit out? I know that they are hoping Hillary will take their bait but she won't. Watch and learn.


by Dickweed on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:20:15 PM EST

Re: Ridiculous (none / 0)

Your handle is perfect for the RW innuendoes you use.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I certainly look forward to the ads in Iowa over what she said when it comes to say healthcare.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:34:11 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Those ads will flop or lead to escalation with hedge fund manager ads, spouse of lobbyists and state lobbyists ads and the like.

Stupid issue this.


by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

you think hedge funds are as undestandable as healthcare? i think you don't fully appreciate the extent to which her choice of support is the problem not merely that she's taking lobbying money.


by bruh21 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I totally agree with you on that. This is a non-issue except to a small very vocal minority. If either campaign would try to take it further they would regret it immensely.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Important observation (3.00 / 1)

But let's assume, for a moment, that Clinton gets away with it -- as she's been getting away with virtually everything, so far, has she not?

Would the lesson for Obama be that, when asked for his position on nuclear weapons vs. al-Quaeda in Pakistan, he should have started by saying:

"You know, that's a very important question. It's a question with which the citizens of the United States of America have not -- if we're really honest
with ourselves -- wrestled nearly enough, in the six years since that awful September morning. But it's a question to which the citizens of the United
States must now give much more careful consideration. Because, although the issue of when to use nuclear weapons and when not to use nuclear
weapons -- including, as I'm sure you already understand, tactical nuclear weapons -- has long been an important and pressing issue for the United
States, this is an issue that requires especially careful consideration now, in the post-9/11 global landscape within which we find ourselves looking
for a solution to the vexing problem of terrorism around the world."

I got 50 seconds out of that. I'm sure that Obama could do it for 1:15.

 


by horizonr on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:47:36 PM EST

Re: Important observation (none / 0)

Nice Explaining you do there. A shame your guy can't do his explaining for himself.

We have had enough of Presidents that can't think for themselves, whose positions have to be explained, who can't speak without a prompter and don't know what to say unless someone else writes them a speech.


by DoIT on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Important observation (none / 0)

LOL.  Wasn't Hillary the one that had trouble answering the question?

Nice dodge, though.  Perhaps you should have considered blaming Al Gore as well.


by JR Hawks on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Important observation (none / 0)

Not if he scratches all of it right after, which would then require 3 days to re-explain.  


by georgep on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scripted and bubbled (none / 0)

It's pretty obvious that Hillary's scripted.

It's also pretty obvious that the debates so far have been so lame that Hillary can get by on scripted answers.

However, when subjected to real questions and follow ups, she fell on her face.

I'll bet the attempt to get out of the breakout session was initiated by her advisors who wanted to keep her in her "bubble."


by Bush Bites on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:35:38 PM EST

I can hardly wait for the nominee (none / 0)

to be selected. This endless bickering and attack over Hillary is driving me nuts.

I can't help it, I like her. I watched the forum as streaming video while it was happening, and I thought she was great.

I also was impressed with Dodd.

It's going to be an interesting...6 months.


by Coral on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:36:18 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

Why is it that if you don't agree with a response (answer) to a question you characterize it as a wrong or arsinine? Point-of-view questions do not have to conform to a true or false binary. If you disagree simply say you disagree. Hillary's responses were perfectly fine in my opinion. That's her thinking and why I may not agree with her I thought she was frank and non-pandering.


by meliou2 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 06:50:12 PM EST

Hillary's real problem illustrated by this speech (3.00 / 1)

didn't occur when she she made the laugh (or not laugh) line about Edwards.

It's actually the next sentence she utters, "Now, you know I've been waiting for this- this gives us a real sense of reality... uh... with my being here.

Go view it.

Her tone and body language say it all - she's uncomfortable with the open forum and direct questioning.

It's at about the 1:05 mark of the video on Edwards's page.  Watch her speak and react to the crowd.  Her voice cracks.  She rolls her head.  She uses exaggerated body language, arms out - distancing/protecting herself from her surroundings.  She clearly felt out of place (if only for a split second).  Like, a mother who feels like she's getting ganged up on in an argument with her kids.

Now, Hillary was probably pretty nervous about YearlyKos, to begin with.  The dustup about her not attending the "breakouts" probably only increased that.  But this short clip seems to illustrate a certain level of discomfort with open forums, the netroots or the activist left.

I'm not saying she dislikes or even looks down up them, exactly.  It's not antipathy so much as discomfort.  The relationship is like a scene from a movie when the popular Prom Queen feels like an outcast when the art chicks are mean to her.  I mean, she was trying to be nice - she came to their stupid little party an all.

To win the Presidency, Hillary knows she needs help from the online/activist left.  She'll take it, too and I don't think she'd screw us over - like when the asshole, ex-boyfriend quarterback asks for her help pulling a prank on the art chicks at the end of the movie...er, nevermind.

I think it's just that Hillary wants to be loved, or at least liked, by the netroots and, right now, she doesn't feel that she is.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.  But, it was the line AFTER the laughs that caught my attention.


by MORawn on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 07:54:58 PM EST

Re: Hillary's real problem illustrated by this spe (none / 0)

No, I think you nailed it. I thought the same thing as I watched the clip earlier today.


by shaesin on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:19:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was laughing AT her (none / 0)

for making such an inane comment instead of answering the question.

Just wanted to make that clear.

;-)


"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean
by Jim in Chicago on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:21:58 PM EST

Re: On Hillary, Lobbyists and Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I thought it was a bit  disingenuous to to focus soley on federal lobbyist money.  I'm no Hillary fan, and I'm not defending her, but the bigger issue is that, sadly, no one can be elected president w/o large of sums of money.  Federal lobbyist, corporate interest or special interest like the AARP- it's the same thing.  Public financing for elections is the problem and she missed an opportunity to talk about the biggest problem of our electoral system (ok well maybe after diebold).


by boobaloo on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 09:07:31 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.