Nyt article on Hillary's fund raising

[karynnj]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/nyregion/08hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

She seems to have a lot of the big fund raisers. One interesting note is that Friends of Hillary has over the last several years raised 33 million of which 17 million is still on hand. Most of the costs were related to direct mail costs - Now we know why we have benn innundated with mail! I don't know what the normal ratio is in politics - but I wouldn't give to a charity with this ratio.

Her goal is to raise 40 million for her "Senate Campaign". I just hope the mid and lower level people are looking at who is helping and who isn't. (Though she did do a fund raiser for Cantwell.

[Dr Ron]

1. Looking at the bright side

Hillary is clearly the front runner. To look on the bright side, having Hillary suck out most sources of money, and dominate the discussion on 2004, may make it very hard people to compete with her.

There is, however, one person who does already have the name recognition and fund raising ability to compete, and I bet we can all guess who I'm thnking of. Kerry very well may be the only viable alternative to Hillary.

[karynnj]

2. Brilliant point

Also, in addition from raising money from his base, he actually talks to us.

Off topic - But in a very moving article, USA Today wrote about Dana Reeves impact on people. they mentioned that various people issued statements, including the Clintons and Kerry. They then had a box, Titled "Words of Love" and had quotes from 3 people - the only politician was Kerry.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Wow

Nice. Not from Bill or Hillary?

[karynnj]

19. That's right

and they had a little picture of Kerry and Dana. It might just be that Dana had such a high profile ion the campaign, but the Reeves have been active for years. I assume Bush made no comment as it wasn't mentioned. (It's also likely that Kerry was closer to the Reeves)

[TayTay]

21. Well, they had been friends for a while.

I believe Mr. Reeve contributed to the '96 campaign.

[JI7]

9. could you tell what the Kerry quote was ?

or a link to it if it's available online. also, was Kerry the only pol participating in the Jon Stewart roast ?

[karynnj]

15. Sorry -here's the quote (it's an excerpt of the statement from Tuesday

"When she lost her inspiration and love, she didn't stop the fight. Chris was America's superhero and Dana became our hero too."

[TayTay]

3. It's going to be an interesting race.

There are a lot of people who don't want a Northeasterner to win at all. They want someone from the West who can appeal to the moderate Dems. (I wonder if this type of candidate can appeal to the coastal regions where the big money is.) Then we have people who want a Southerner for pretty much the same reasons as people want a Westerner, only more so.

I agree Dr. Ron. The race may just go to the higher profile Dems and the smaller candidates (except for Warner who can fund-raise with the best of them, apparently) may get squeezed out. Sen. Kerry has proven that he can generate money, he did raise $400,000 in 4 days for those House races. (His name is not on the ballot. That was a remarkable event. I wonder just how many Vets are on that big e-mail list.)

If Sens. Kerry And Clinton both run, I wonder how this race will go and if a challenger will emerge from another region of the country who would lead a 'no Northeastern Liberals' faction. (It could/will happen.) I also wonder how much of a difference the ground game in Iowa will make and who is already rounding up the locals there. It will be interesting, that's for sure. (Is Sen. Clinton spreading around any of her money for local candidates? $17 million is a lot to keep to yourself in a race that she should have pretty much shown up by May.)

[Dr Ron]

4. Iowa?

Iowa is a big question. Will Kerry's previous victory there increase his chances in the future? If Vilsack is in, will Iowa no longer be a factor with everyone expecting Vilsack to win?

After Iow we have New Hampshire, which remains must win for Kerry. Assuming he does win, this could also give him plenty of momentum.

If Warner doesn't get off the ground (and it is far too early to predict how he will do), it will be helpful if it is Kerry vs Clinton in the southern states. I suspect Kerry will do much better than her there.

Speaking of Warner, he has a big cover story on the NY Times Magazine coming up. Obviously he's peaking way too early.

[karynnj]

5. Just realised that the lack of a big NYT Mag story

prior to the primaries is additional proof that Kerry was not the establishment candidate. I am near certain there wasn't one until the Matt Bai one before the election.

(I remember the Clinton one from 1990 or 1991.)

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Did he have any really big magazine covers?

I know Dean was on "Time." Was he in early primary runnings? From what I understand nobody paid much attention to Kerry in the very beginning but he just worked hard and campaigned.

[JI7]

12. only after he started winning the Primary

but the whore media was saying Kerry's campaign was over even ON the day of Iowa caucuses. the Des Moines Register and some other small local papers were the only ones which printed the truth about Kerry's increasing support .

[TayTay]

6. arner is untested on the national scene

That is neither good nor bad, it just means untested. There haven't been any gaffes yet, but there will be, cuz there always are. In a way, neither has Hillary. I mean she was tested as First Lady, but not as a national aspirant to the Presidency. She has to stand on her own two feet and run.

It will be a fascinating race. The Dems should be in a good position to win, so the primary races will be intense. (Or not. I might have said the same thing in 2002, yet the race was over by the end of February in '04. So, who knows.)

I think Kerry has a lot to run on and can make a credible start. That much I will commit to. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess. (I know who I will vote for and work for, but it's anybody's guess what will happen.)

[whometense]

13. No well-publicized gaffes, anyway.

That Warner interview on This Week a few weeks back was a real eye-opener for me. He was absolutely uninspiring in his inability to answer any questions relating to foreign policy or world affairs. And on a number of the questions closer to home he waffled like crazy.

I don't know how long the Warner craze will last, but he is simply not even close to ready for the job of president.

Obviously, I want JK. But it's more because of his experience and thoughtfulness than because of the comfort I feel with him. I would think that if the country had learned nothing else from the Shrub presidency, it would be that character matters. Content matters. It's hard to imagine following up this president with another equally inexperienced.

As for Hillary, I'm invoking the golden rule here, only because she's a dem. I think the country could be ready for a woman president if the right one came along. If she were the nominee I'd vote for her. But until that point I'd do everything I could to stop that from happening.

I remember watching Hardball - it must have been nearly a year ago - when they started throwing Hillary's name around. I remember wondering at the time where that came from. I'm absolutely certain that the first mention of her as a potential candidate came from republicans, and I still believe on some level that the whole idea of her candidacy is some kind of giant rovian mindf***.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. That's why timing is everything

If you get in too early you could dry yourself out of funds. That's why it's smart for Kerry to not say anything now about running and to focus on 2006 and help other democrats. I love how he keeps us all updated on his mailing list and his .com site. I think Warner is someone to really worry about and Feingold if he does run. But Kerry is seen as the most liberal according to the democratic daily blog. So in 2008 if the country is ready for a liberal and someone who can really clean up this mess I think Kerry could do even better this time.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Yep

I think Kerry could do very well against Hillary if she does run in 2008. But you also have to remember right now two other good name's out there is Mark Warner and Russ Feingold. They could give him a run for his money too, but he seems to have a lot of support left of people.

[karynnj]

16. Dr Ron's point about money applies to Feingold

The question will be whether he can raise enough money. Looking over at the Feingold group, it looks like the attempts to have an internet organization (that the Feingold group mention), are very limited. But there's a lot of time. The question is whether in the next year, he can be 2007's "Dean" raising money from the netroots.

If Feingold can't get the money to compete and it's Warner, Kerry and Clinton, you would think that Warner pulls more from Clinton. (In fact, Warner could be the alternative for people who are both more conservative (Democrats) and sexist. The fact, that among Democrats the most likely to be sexist when it really comes down it are the conservative Democrats. The media would likely see it as Hillary and Kerry fighting for the liberal base. The question is whether DU is unrepresentative of the liberal wing.

[ginnyinWI]

22. I think both Warner and Feingold are good veep possibilities.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Kerry, the average Dem's reasoning (not a DUer--I said average) might go like this:

"...Kerry? But he already ran and didn't make it. Nice guy though--I voted for him once before. And you know, he almost did win. We know Bush lied about stuff--probably about Kerry, too...

Hillary? She might be okay--if Bill helps her out. He was pretty good for the country. Of course that was before 9/11. What about the War on Terror? She doesn't know so much about foreign policy, does she? Can she be tough enough to handle all of today's threats? Is it smart to have our first woman president during times like these?? She's only been in the Senate for a few years...

Hmm. Maybe Kerry would be the better president. He sure seems smart, and has a lot more experience than Hillary does. When he talks he makes a lot of sense. More than she does..." ;)

note: I'm adding in a fair amount of sexism here, because I think that's where most people still are, out here in the Midwest.

[politicasista]

14. I wish she would reconsider

As a person that misses the Clinton years of peace and prosperity (too young to vote in 92 or 96) right now, I don't know if people are ready for another presidential dynasty. I agree the country may or may not be ready for a female president, but I don't know if Hillary is the answer.

You have many AA that would welcome her in the WH, mainly because of Bill, but their political grandstanding during Mrs. King's funeral, Bill's relationship with Pappy Bush, and some comments he made on BET's Saving Our Selves Katrina telethon (about rebuilding NOLA) bothers some people.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Bill got a rousing ovation (better him than Blinky), but the fact was that he was like telling them to "pick Hillary and you'll see more of me." What's also scary is that Tom Joyner (urban radio talk show host and Clinton man) is also jumping on the pimp Hillary for President bandwagon (though he hasn't said anything of late).

I will vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I wish she would reconsider and think about what she, Bill, and Chelsea may have to go through again.


My two cents.

[whometense]

17. Really interesting perspective.

I totally agree with your comment about presidential dynasties. That would seriously bother me even if I liked HRC.

I was really glad to hear you say this: the fact was that he was like telling them to "pick Hillary and you'll see more of me."

I've picked that up, too, and wondered if it was just me being overcritical of the Clintons - glad to hear you feel the same way. I supported Bill all through his travails, and I agreed with HRC that he was the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy/witchhunt. But the fact is, he gave them plenty of ammo, and his behavior was, ummm, let's say irresponsible, knowing that the Newties were gunning for him. He's done nothing but sink in my esteem since he left the white house. I loathe his triangulating, republican-enabling behavior, and his relationship with Bush senior fills me with nausea.

I also don't see what HRC has accomplished on her own that qualifies her for the white house. And she doesn't inspire me. Does she actually inspire anyone? I see her, frankly, as the heir to that odious concept, the "electable candidate." Hated it in 2004, hate it now. Can't we get the BEST QUALIFIED?

[wisteria]

18. I agree with you on your Hillary observations. I also have lost

much respect for Bill Clinton. Maybe I am a little harsh here, but I think he shares some of the blame for our losses in recent years. He may be a likable guy, but the media and the Republicans have been successful in presenting him as lacking integrity and unethical at times. He has, as you mentioned given his critics a lot of material to work with. I would not welcome another four or eight years of the Clinton's. Frankly, I think they are waring out their welcome.

[ginnyinWI]

23. could be!

If Hillary won, it would be Bush-41, Clinton-42, Bush-43, Clinton-44. Yikes. It's like dueling monarchies.

The things I've heard recently about Bill all related to being in the pocket of Big Business and favoring them over the people.

[ProSense]

20. Agree, especially

on this point:

I loathe his triangulating, republican-enabling behavior, and his relationship with Bush senior fills me with nausea.

[ginnyinWI]

24. Your last paragraph is at the heart of it.

What has she done on her own? A lot of political posturing is what I see.

The only people I can see she might inspire are people whose top priority is to see a woman in the office of president.

I don't see her as particularly electible, except possibly that a lot of Corporate money might flow her way because of Bill.

[TayTay]

25. She is the choice in 2006

As she was in 2002 when a lot of people thought she would run. Al Gore was at number 2. Sen. Kerry had 4% of the straw polls in 2002. Again, it doesn't really mean much at this stage of the game. You aim to be in around the top 5 and to be able to raise money. We shall see.

[muse]

26. I disagree. She has a ton of qualifications.

On her own, she was more qualified to run the first time around than Bill, probably. He admitted as much.

[karynnj]

27. How would that be?

I know she was considered to a top female lawyer, but she had never run for public office. Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas for many years. His educational background was at least equivilent to hers. He chose to go to Arkansas and run for office. He also taught law when he was out of office. Hillary was a lawyer in private prectice, though I know she worked on at least one task force in Arkansas - but that would be a very unusual background for running for President.

[TayTay]

29. Wasn't Sen. Clinton a lawyer working on the Sen. Judiciary

Committee durng the investigations of Nixon? (Or was she in the House? I forget.) She is a formidable woman and very intelligent. I just differ with her on too many things to support her in a primary. But she is a distinguished woman in her own right.

[muse]

30. Yes, it can be

and she worked on issues concerning women and children. She's ridiculously accomplished. It pains me when women slam her. I do think it's fine to disagree with her, but she is one of the most accomplished women who has consistently fought on the right side of women's issues from day one of her adult life.

I'll look some of this stuff up and get back to you.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but I am not a Hillary hater.

[karynnj]

32. Thanks for your posts - I do know that she was accomplished

I still think that Bill was far better positioned to run. (Think Clark - he has a huge resume too, but no political experience and it hurt him.)

[muse]

34. Cool.

I hear what you are saying.

[muse]

31. Here you go

A synopsis of her accomplished work on women's and children's issues:

In 1969, Rodham entered Yale Law School where she served on the Board of Editors of Yale Review of Law and Social Action and worked with underprivileged children at the Yale-New Haven Hospital. During the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. During the summer of 1971, she traveled to Washington, D.C. to work on Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. During her second year in law school, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development. She also took on cases of child abuse at New Haven Hospital and worked at the city Legal Services, providing free legal service to the poor. She received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Yale in 1973, having written her widely recognized thesis on the rights of children <7>, and began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.


1972-1992

During her post-graduate study, Rodham also served as staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund. She joined the presidential impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal. Rodham became a faculty member (one of only two women in the faculty) at the University of Arkansas Law School, located in Fayetteville, where her Yale Law School classmate Bill Clinton was teaching as well. In 1975 Rodham and Clinton were married and moved to Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1976, Hillary Rodham joined the venerable and influential Rose Law Firm, specializing in intellectual property cases while doing child advocacy cases pro bono. In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm <8>. President Jimmy Carter appointed Rodham to the board of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978.

First Lady of Arkansas

As first lady, Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she successfully fought (against some opposition) for improved testing standards of new teachers <9>. She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee and introduced a pioneering program called Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. Clinton was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984 <10>.

Throughout her time as first lady, Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm. In 1988 and 1991 National Law Journal named Clinton one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America <11>. Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund <12>.


My commentary - there was some discussion when Bill ran for president, that while he had been the governor of a small state (and had political skill and charisma), it was his wife that had put in the hard work in her career for people and causes that mattered.

[ProSense]

28. Here's why I don't agree with Bill.

When Bill Clinton was in office, I soaked up what Hillary was doing---watched her push the health care package. From what I could determine she must have been a shrewd lawyer, but she didn't come off any where near as savvy as Bill Clinton in terms diplomacy and putting her ideas into perspective in terms of the big picture.

[whometense]

33. self-delete