Wednesday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Stunning devastation in the Southeast: “Rescue crews, some with the help of the National Guard, went door-to-door looking for more victims a day after a cluster of tornadoes tore through the South, killing at least 52 people and injuring several hundred. Residents in five states tried to salvage what they could Wednesday from homes reduced to piles of debris. Tens of thousands were without power after dozens of twisters were reported in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama.”

* Sounds like Republican officials on the Hill have reason to be nervous: “Top House Republicans were told in recent days that a former employee of their campaign committee may have forged an official audit during the contentious 2006 election cycle and that they should brace for the possibility that an unfolding investigation could uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years, according to GOP sources briefed on the members-only discussions.”

* I often wish the White House wasn’t so humiliating: “In congressional testimony yesterday, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that his agency used waterboarding on three al Qaeda suspects. In 2006, Hayden banned the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations. The Pentagon also banned its employees from using it, and the FBI said its investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects. But in today’s gaggle, White House said that it may approve the use of waterboarding again ‘depend[ing] upon circumstances.’ … Later, in a press briefing, Fratto tried to distance himself from these remarks, claiming that he only was talking about ‘the process’ of approving waterboarding. ‘I’m not speculating,’ he declared.”

* Oddly enough, just last week, Bush was boasting that the nation is better off than it was eight years ago, because our military is stronger than it was: “The military’s top uniformed officer says U.S. forces are ‘significantly stressed’ by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously trying to stem the tide of violent extremism elsewhere. ‘The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats,’ Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in testimony prepared for delivery Wednesday.”

* When it comes to shattering records, Democratic turnout on Super Tuesday was pretty impressive.

* And speaking of Super Tuesday, I suppose it’s not too surprising that quite a few Floridians showed up at their polling stations yesterday, wondering why they weren’t allowed to vote. (Florida’s primary was last week.) The Palm Beach County Election Supervisor alone received over 100 calls.

* In a pleasant surprise, the president has backed off a plan to enter into a treaty with Iraq without congressional approval: “The administration has maintained that the agreement would not rise to the level of a treaty. The ‘security guarantee’ statement appeared in the announcement because Iraqis wanted it on the table, the administration official said. But, he said, the United States does not believe it to be necessary. ‘We say, look, if you want a security guarantee, that will be a treaty, and a treaty will have to go to our Senate,’ endangering the whole agreement, he said.”

* What on earth was going on in New Mexico? “The state Democratic Party chairman is formally apologizing for not adequately preparing for Tuesday’s caucus. ‘We had long lines and it’s the responsibility of the party to say we needed to do a better job,’ said Chairman Brian Colon. ‘Instead of 4,000 volunteers, we probably needed 6,000 volunteers. For voters who weren’t able to vote, I have that regret.’ Among the issues voters had were very long lines at some voting locations – up to three hours at Rio Rancho High School – and a lack of ballots. Colon said nobody could have predicted such a high turnout at the caucus, which brought in more than 152,000 voters.”

* Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card wishes for another Bush presidency — this time, with Jeb. No, I don’t understand it, either.

* The Senate considered amendment to the surveillance bill this afternoon, sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md), which would mandate that the law expire in four years. 60 votes were needed for passage; it got 49. (Because of the interest in the candidates, it’s worth noting that Obama voted with the party, but Clinton, who was in DC, did not vote.)

* One of the problems I’ve noticed with bloggers enthusiastically taking sides in a presidential primary fight is that they become so obsessed, they’re not worth reading anymore; their posts are just too predictable. Hugh Hewitt, a Mitt Romney sycophant, became just such a person quite a while ago, though it appears he realizes that his cause is lost.

* After last year’s Rich Little fiasco, the hosts of this year’s White House Correspondents Association dinner wanted to go a little younger. After Ellen DeGeneres and Steve Carrell turned them down, late night TV host Craig Ferguson accepted.

* And finally, a quote of the day, from the National Review’s Mark Steyn: “The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn’t bode well for November.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

Nothing about the $5 million Clinton loaned her campaign? That seems like big news to me.

  • 71% will happily vote for Obama; 72% will happily vote for Clinton. Is there a rule somewhere that around 29% of each party is somewhat nuts?

  • Is there a rule somewhere that around 29% of each party is somewhat nuts?

    I suspect that 29% holds for the general population.

  • Is there a rule somewhere that around 29% of each party is somewhat nuts?

    that would help explain W’s approval numbers…

  • The Senate considered amendment to the surveillance bill …which would mandate that the law expire in four years. 60 votes were needed for passage;…

    is the 60 vote threshold related to ending cloture or is there something else at work here related to ammendments?

  • Because of the interest in the candidates, it’s worth noting that Obama voted with the party, but Clinton, who was in DC, did not vote.

    Of course she didn’t. Anyone who thinks Her Majesty will voluntarily give up the dictatorial powers George Bush has illegally arrogated to the Executive probably believes the moon is made of bleu cheese and that the cow out on the back 40 can jump over it.

    The lack of an action is an action. By her actions do you know her.

  • Tom, Obama has missed a bunch of votes too. Clinton voted to oppose censure for MoveOn and he didn’t vote. They both are job searching on our time.

    But your comment does raise an interesting question I’ve had: do you think the Supreme Court will remain on the side of executive privilege once a Democrat has the presidency?

  • …but Clinton, who was in DC, did not vote…

    Well, there’s a typical forthright Clinton stand. Weren’t the Clinton supporters on this forum railing against Obama for voting “Present” in the Illinois legislature? I would say the not voting to sunset this turkey is indeed a vote to perpetuate the unitary (Read: monarchical) executive. If the bill needs to be re-authorized in four years then it can be brought up again for a vote.

    Either Clinton has no faith in her ability to substantially alleviate the terrorism situation in four years or she wants to reserve for herself every iota of power accumulated by Bush.

    I can’t wait to hear how the Clinton supporters spin this one.

  • ***Hugh Hewitt…realizes that his cause is lost.***

    Rats. I was expecting to hear that he’d done EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING THIS SIDE OF THE CRAB NEBULA a humongous favor— committed suicide.

    As for the US military, maybe we should just invite Canada to invade and conquer us. Their small contingent in Afghanistan seems to be doing more in the REAL “war on the bad guys” than everything ol’ “Dubya the Deciderer” has with his Fabulous Iraqi Expedition.

    And someone needs to “thwap” Andy Card with a CSX coal train. Bush One tinkered around with opening Pandora’s Box. Bush Two opened it and dumped the damned contents out on the floor. I do NOT want to give those diseased maniacs a third chance at restoring a feudal society….

  • Steve@12, Hugh is currently sitting on the floor, clutching his Mitt Romney Ken doll between his ample breasts, and rocking back and forth, back and forth as the tears stream down his cheeks.

  • Jen # 2 – a good one. The numbers surprise me. I know many Hillary supporters (and by the way, not one wants to return to the 90’s), but I don’t know any who dislike Obama. But the Obama supporters, at least on the liberal sites, absolutely detest Hillary, as much as the Republicans do it seems. The Hillary bashing is just unbelievable.

    Look, she’s still got a chance. Not a good one, but it could happen. We can’t peel off 28% of the Democrats who can’t get over their Hillary snit.

    We have to win this damn thing.

  • Nothing about the $5 million Clinton loaned her campaign? That seems like big news to me.

    It should be big news. What about all that money people gave for the “General” election? Has she spent it? What happens if she doesn’t get the nomination, will that money be refunded? Isn’t that a clear violation of the campaign finance laws?

    Good thing McCain plans to abide by the McCain-Feingold rules. Oh wait…

  • Ugh, Florida…

    I’ll add my voice to Tom’s, in that probably my single biggest concern about Hillary Clinton is that she’s too kindly disposed to some of those Executive SuperDuperPowers that Bush and Cheney have arrogated.

    It’s not that I think she’d abuse them as badly as they have, or even close. But just keeping them is a form of abuse–and the Clintons have a pretty lousy record when it comes to government transparency as well as a demonstrated propensity to believe the rules don’t necessarily apply to them.

  • “Sounds like Republican officials on the Hill have reason to be nervous.”

    The NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) treasurer, Christopher Ward, was in this position since 1993. Hmmm. Wasn’t that when the Gingrich revolution began? He not only was treasurer of NRCC, but also several PAC’s and GOP congressmen, such as Bob Ney. But it gets better. Three of the six congressmen Ward worked for are Saxton(R-NJ), Walsh (R-NY) and Weller (R-IL). They have all recently announced their retirements. The other three are Buyer (R-IN), English (R-PA), and Goodlatte (R-VA). Goodlatte has been mentioned as possibly running for John Warner’s senate seat. Can anyone say “culture of corruption”?

  • How is Hillary going to pay back that loan? With our tax dollars? Clintons are trash.

  • 16 Hark, that is correct.

    Obama is a win/win for democrats.

    Clintons are scum, and many people will refuse to vote for a Clinton in a general election (and she could never sway the independent vote in the general election)

  • well now there is an interesting strategy to promote a “uniter.” make every effort to alienate approximately 50% of the entire – and very large – Democratic primary turnout to date by suggesting their candidate is scum. political genius at work!

  • Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card wishes for another Bush presidency — this time, with Jeb. No, I don’t understand it, either.

    Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush

    Sounds reasonable to me.
    Along these lines… visionary, scientist, and scifi writer weighs in:

    http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/02/election-recommendations-anyone.html

    I’ve just returned from Europe where, I must tell you, the prevailing attitude is not only disappointment with America, but also a certain amount of shadenfreude, or secret pleasure, over how far into silliness we seem to have fallen. The spectacle of two “royal families” reigning over the American political parties for almost thirty years is viewed as proof that we have become absurd, lacking any confidence in our ability to draw new leaders from the general population. An age-old trap that we used to accuse the Europeans of!

    Couldn’t agree more with that….

  • ROTF, the British are still just bitter than the Adams’, father and son, helped lead us away from the Empire. 🙂

  • re the discussion upthread about Clinton’s loan to self – Kerry loaned himself (IIRC) $6.8 million before Iowa in 2004 – and it was about the smartest thing he ever did as it allowed him to comeback and win Iowa. I don’t recall much fuss about it at all.

    of course, everything is more evil if a Clinton does it (like my saving a child from getting run over example the other day. . .)

  • Of all the things to get on the Clintons about, that Sen. Clinton loaned her campaign money–much as John Kerry did–has to be just about the last one on the list.

    Myself, I much prefer that to the Clintons’ unfortunately common tactic of raising money: finding a sleazeball.

    (And if you don’t think McCain will beat them mercilessly over the head with that tawdry history–echoed a hundredfold by his press corps worshippers–you’re delusional.)

  • It’s always the same story. Whether they are Christians or Obama supporters, those who preach love and light and unity seldom practice it. To be sure, it’s really hard to practice it, but please try a bit harder. With the exception of a few trolls, we’re on the same side.

  • Z: I think you are right.
    Because looky here:
    Christopher Hitchens is British too… right?
    Here he goes again… From The Case Against Hillary Clinton:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2182065:

    On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy “experience”—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim “worked” well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York. Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking…

  • ROTF –

    I saw that piece when it came out. Interesting, but I pay little credit because Hitchens has become unglued. He is a huge apologist for Bush’s Mess’o’potamia. So I’m inclined to think if he is attacking Clinton it probably means he sees her as the bigger threat to his favorite American occupation. Which improves her standing in my book.

  • z, Hitchens has hated the Clintons for years. He wrote a book about Bill called (I think) “No One Left to Lie To.” (Believe it or not, I didn’t read it…)

    I still sort of like Hitchens (and I liked the article ROTF linked)–he supports the war for the right reasons, even though the war’s wrong, and he actually blasts Bush for his awful management of it–but he’s not what one would call a reliable source.

  • For almost forty years I’ve voted for Democrats because I am a liberal and a progressive. For those same reasons I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

    She has taught me, as did her husband, that the Clintons are better at talking the talk than they are walking the walk.

    I’m enough of a wonk to understand that Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton, which led to Bill’s declaration of executive privilege for anyone involved in any way with the White House, paved the way for Bush/Cheney’s invocation of executive privilege for nearly everything. The apologists for Clinton the First will ignore this as well as the wrongheaded bills he signed into law. They will attribute the Golden Age economy of the late 90’s to Clinton’s acumen rather than the tech bubble. They will remember the confetti strewn ascension of Bill, accompanied by the strains of “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” while forgetting the loss of Congress and “That depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    I must be one of those limousine liberal Obama supporters descried by the Clintonistas here . My limousine is a ’92 Ford Escort.

  • Obama has raised $4 million in the 24 hours since the polls closed.

    Go ahead, Hill and Billary, loan your campaign $20 million and run your show “Romney-style.”

  • Re #9,

    Tom, I laugh at my wingnut brothers whenever they talk up how BGII needs his executive powers and say: “Would you like to have Hillary in the White House with those powers?”.

    Re #15

    Hillary can’t spend her General Election contributions right now. You want to give the Rethugs more ammunition?

    Re #2, 5, 6, 7

    You make a good point. With 28% of Democrats unhinged by this primary season, we are going to be short 14% come fall (unless they are just lying to jin up support for their own candidate (you’d better vote for my candidate ’cause I ain’t going to vote for yours) ).

    Sad really. I suppose in the end there is no possible candidate in the universe to make everybody happy.

  • It’s probably worth pointing out that some chunk of that 28 percent or so are probably “useless” voters anyway, in terms of winning a presidential election. For instance, I live in NY; I might vote for Clinton anyway if she’s the nominee, but she won’t “need” my vote to win my state.

    And I’d at least like to think that if I lived anywhere remotely competitive, it would be an easy decision to hold my nose and pull the lever.

  • dajafi, lets hope that goes for you and Cleaver both: if Cali is in play, the Dems are in trouble. although i’m in midwestern purple swing state Iowa, and I honestly dont see either Clinton or Obama losing here in the fall. I think Iowa regrets going Red last time out. The state has learned its lesson.

    (by the way, for anyone who keeps track of blue dogs, Rep. Boswell has drawn a primary from the left.)

  • @26:
    It’s always the same story. Whether they are Christians or Obama supporters, those who preach love and light and unity seldom practice it. To be sure, it’s really hard to practice it, but please try a bit harder.

    Yawn.

    Clinton Apologists are getting bitchy.

  • ***hark*** “…But the Obama supporters, at least on the liberal sites, absolutely detest Hillary, as much as the Republicans do it seems. The Hillary bashing is just unbelievable.”

    Glad to see that unification and togetherness platform of the Obama supporters at work.

    Cleaver…you’re tainted…you can’t even hear Hillary’s name without snarling and without calling her some kind of name. Read Greenwald’s site at salon .com to know just how meaningless that vote was. We mustn’t allow a democrat to have the same powers the republicans had…they are all for taking them away from a dem. The republicans will simply not allow a dem to act like them in any matter…just when the spying power could be used to find out what Bush and his supporters have been doing the last 8yrs.. Your stupid predictable hatred of Clinton blinds you to any discourse. Like waving a red flag in front of a bull’s nose…they just can’t help themselves.

  • One of the problems I’ve noticed with bloggers enthusiastically taking sides in a presidential primary fight is that they become so obsessed, they’re not worth reading anymore; their posts are just too predictable. Hugh Hewitt, a Mitt Romney sycophant, became just such a person quite a while ago…

    Does that make Taylor Marsh the Hugh Hewitt of the left?

  • zeitgeist, agreed re: Hitchens. I USED to like him but he’s gone nutzo of late. Now, I only want to give him a giant cup of STFU. If he’s agin it it must be good!

  • *Tens of thousands were without power after dozens of twisters were reported in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama.”

    But, because several of the debates were sponsored by the so-called “clean coal” industry, questions about climate change (and candidates’ position on same) were never asked…

    *From NM: Colon said nobody could have predicted such a high turnout at the caucus, […]

    I’ve heard *that one* (nobody could have predicted) before 🙂

    * The Senate considered amendment to the surveillance bill this afternoon, sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md), which would mandate that the law expire in four years. 60 votes were needed for passage; it got 49. (Because of the interest in the candidates, it’s worth noting that Obama voted with the party, but Clinton, who was in DC, did not vote.)

    I have been wondering where our fair presidential candidates were regarding their “day job”, especially on all the FISA-related amendments which are coming up this week… Campaigning is all very well and yesterday was very exciting, but we’re still paying them $165K a year (plus benefits, including health care) to mind our business *now*, not only tomorrow.

    I seem to remember Anne refusing to let go of her dark suspicions of Obama’s motives, when he didn’t vote on Kyl-Lieberman (even though he was not in DC at the time, having been assured that the vote wasn’t coming up any time soon). Anne, what say you now? She was there and still took “the easy way out” rather than commit herself to anything… Do you figure it’s as inexcusable on her part as it had been on Obama’s, when he took “the easy way out” and skipped the Kyl-Lieberman? Or, perhaps, a tad *more* inexcusable, since it takes more effort to get your butt, on a short notice, from NH to DC, than it does from DC to DC?

    And do you still claim that it’s more likely that President Obama , rather than President Clinton, would go “toe-to-toe” with the Majority Leader Dodd, *on the wrong side* of the illegal wiretapping issue?

  • ROTF #36

    Eeew that pic creeped me out.
    I dont think it impacted my prediction-making, however.

    The big variable is does HRC get any cash out of her performance last night. Her staff is skipping paychecks despite the loan.

    The confluence of the caucus format, good geography and good spacing gives Obama the inside track for the rest of February. This is his chance to put it away.

    If, however, he fails to do so in Feb, he will lose momentum for missing his moment, she will be strong in Tex, Ohio and Penn.

    So he either wins it in Feb or he doesn’t win it at all.

  • A couple thoughts:

    I find nothing unseemly about the Clintons lending themselves money; I’m just amused by it. They’re literally out of gas while Obama is accelerating: we’re now at $5.4 million and growing since the close of the Feb 5th polls. We haven’ reached a full 24 hours since California closed it’s polls, either. That’s 38 minutes from now. The West Coasters are just getting in on the fun; I wouldn’t be surprised if they hit $8 million–the sum of the Clinton’s loan and 3-day fundraiser drive, in the 36 hours post-Feb 5th. An unbelievable show of strength.

    Zeitgest: I have to disagree about Clinton being strong in Texas. Obama’s already making inroads in the latin vote (up to 44% in Arizona and starting to break more along gender lines, i.e. close to mimicking other demographics), and Texas is actually a very complicated primary/caucus hybrid, with 2/3rds of the delegates allotted by the over-18,000 caucuses. That favors the type of money, organization, and enthusiasm Obama has in spades, and Clinton’s campaign currently lacks.

    I’m sitting in SFO right now waiting for my new flight (missed my first), but tomorrow I start planning for my trip to Texas. Hoping to help open an office in Houston or Katy and get to work.

  • Another thought: a campaign with big national poll numbers but seeing those quickly disappearing as a rival shoots up the charts has to go a month without pay for senior staffers while it enacts a plan of “surviving” a strong of early small state primaries and caucuses in the hopes of winning the nomination on the back of 1 or 2 big primaries a month away.

    That was Rudy Giuliani’s situation at the beginning of January.

    That accurately describes Hillary Clinton, now.

  • The ongoing demonizaton of one Democratic candidate or the other is as tedious as the rationalizations put forth by their rabid supporters. Does anyone think calling a candidate “evil” presents such a convincing argument as to change minds?

    Both of these candidates are politicians. They play politics. They’re neither saints nor sinners. But imperfect as they are, one of them is going to run against an opponent who would take us down a much darker path. Anyone who lets hatred or disdain for one candidate blind them to that larger truth is, in my opinion, a fool.

  • Michael, the money issue was my big caveat – if she doesn’t generate some cash, she is done sooner rather than later; if she can generate a lot of cash, she may be able to pick one or two targeted fights in February and deny Obama a sweep (a medium amount of cash means she has to weather the February losses and look to March).

    I understand Texas is a hybrid, but historically she has done well in big states. She runs well with Latino populations. Win or lose, she has run strong in states around Arkansas. I think it is fair to expect her to do pretty well there.

  • Well, she did do well in big states on Tuesday, but her lead in those states evaporated in a matter of days (Mass went from 37 points to, what, 13 or so at the end? Cali was 28 and it finished 10, right? Etc), and that wasn’t with Obama pouring resources into each.

    Your points are fair ones, I guess I’m just less optimistic about her fundraising and ability to organize Texas. And I see her Latin lead diminishing as time goes on.

    Basically, I view her campaign as a leaking boat. She was bailing and bailing pre-Tuesday and did just enough to stay afloat, but the waters ahead are rough (to extend the metaphor), so I don’t see her lasting much longer. Especially since Obama apparently can just send out an email and much any funds she raises in triple the speed and then out-spend her wherever she decides to send those funds ($5.7 mil in the 24 hours after Cali polls closed).d

  • *** Dennis, for a long-time Democrat, you need to do some homework before you go spouting nonsense about the Clintons paving the way for Bush’s use of executive privilege – but you just keep writing history the way it feels best for you.

    *** Clinton raised 13.5 million in January, in addition to the $5 mil she loaned the campaign, so she wasn’t trying to run the show on only loaned funds.

    *** For women who need a rallying cry, and for men who are brave enough to read it, I offer this: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

    I don’t think HRC is going to go gentle into that good night, much as some of you want her to.

  • In all fairness, out of several comments asserting that the Clinton loan to her campaign was newsworthy, only one (#18) suggested that it was somehow improper. There was other Clinton hate, of course, but that is par for the course in any political discussion.

    Me, I think the loan is newsworthy when contrasted with Obama’s strong fundraising. It raises a few questions. What role will money play? If Hilary keeps up with Obama through February despite being massively outspent, is she the triumphant underdog? With a big financial lead, with the Obama campaign sock away funds for the general? If so, how risky of a strategy is that?

    It’s easy to pick out one comment and use it to paint all of one’s opponents. Kids do it all the time. Maybe we need some kind of heat/light filter on here.

  • I read the essay by Robin Morgan that Anne linked to above.

    There are a few good thoughts therein, mostly about the jokes made at Hillary’s expense. I agree with Morgan regarding the “humor” often aimed at Hillary. It’s clearly aimed at the old guard of first- and second-generation feminists, too. (There’s nothing wrong with that.)

    I’ve got a message for Robin Morgan: it’s not a bad essay, but every single feminist I know (you’ve probably been at conferences with some of them, Mrs. Morgan, or taught them, or seen their art) is voting for Obama.

    Why?

    Because he’s a better candidate.

  • It’s clearly aimed at the old guard of first- and second-generation feminists, too.

    That may not’ve been clear — her essay is aimed at the old guard feminists, not the tasteless jokes.

  • Obama hit 6 million, in roughly 25 hours.

    I read that only 3% (!) of his donors have maxed out

    He could have a very big Feb., especially if he gets big fundraising boosts after his string of expected wins this weekend and beyond…

  • Michael, @52.

    The “only 3% of donors maxed out” doesn’t really mean much. It does not, necessarily, mean that they’re going to be doling out, over the next months, up to the allowed limit; it may simply mean they they’ve maxed out on their reserves 🙂 I know that I’d sent Edwards as much as I could — in $25 and $50 increments — and the total still never made the threshold ($200?250?300?) that has to be reported. There are two maximums; one is what a candidate can accept and another what a supporter can afford to spend 🙂

  • libra @52:

    Well, you’re right that it doesn’t mean that 97% of Obama’s supporters will give again. However, reports are that 50% of Hilary’s supporters have hit the legal limit ($2300). So, all things being equal (which they are not!), twice as many of Obama’s supporters can legally give more. Only a small percentage will, of course, but would you rather have a small percentage of 97% or a small percentage of 50%?

  • But the Obama supporters, at least on the liberal sites, absolutely detest Hillary, as much as the Republicans do it seems.

    Yet still Hillary supporters insist that Clinton-hatred is no different than what any other Dem gets. I don’t get it. How much Clinton-hatred do you people need to see until you understand that a large chunk of our society hates them? When even Democrats are prone to bashing the hell out of them, something’s wrong.

    For the record, I’m an Obama supporter who duly defended the Clintons in the 90’s and will continue to do so if (gulp) I’m so needed. After all, you don’t get these debating chops by sitting by in a good fight. Hell, to be honest, this Hillary-Barack feud is the best thing that’s happened to me in awhile. I stopped debating because Republicans are too loony to bother with. At least now I can get in a heated debate with people who actually understand words. Sweet!

    And if anyone’s really interested: I do have a blog and it has messageboards just screaming for attention. I can explain everything you’re doing wrong and without even being too rude about it. That’s my promise to you.

  • libra:

    obviously, that doesn’t mean all 97% will all give until they hit $2300. The point, though, is that he has something like 700,000 donors, the vast majority of whom are able to give more money, which is an enormous pool. Hillary, as someone else noted, is at something like 50% maxed out, and that’s from a smaller overall pool. I’m not sure what her donor numbers are, but my best guess is around 300,000.

    Would you rather have 650K donors to go back to, or 150K?

    And look at the results: Hillary raises 13.5 million in January, Obama 32. Hillary asks her supporters for 3 million in 72 hours; Obama gets 6.6 million in 30 hours. That’s a fundraising behemoth that Obama built that not even Hillary has.

  • Sorry Clinton supporters, but there is no way to spin the money equation.

    Elections are won or lost as a direct result of cash. It doesn’t matter how good the candidate – without enough to money to run, they can’t win. Chris Dodd was my favorite candidate, but he just couldn’t raise enough money to stay competitive.

    The fact that Clinton had to give herself money and her staf are going without pay is a clear indicator that money has become an issue for her campaign. Over the same time period, Obama has outpaced her 3 to 1 in fundraising and managed to match her self-contribution through donations in one day. You cannot spin these facts away, no matter how hard you try.

    McCain is screwed, too. He may cruise to victory over the other atrocious GOP candidates, but he will have very little left to fight with. If I were Obama, I would be extremely pleased with the state of things from a financial standpoint.

  • Anne@48:

    *** Dennis, for a long-time Democrat, you need to do some homework before you go spouting nonsense about the Clintons paving the way for Bush’s use of executive privilege – but you just keep writing history the way it feels best for you.

    And you keep ignoring it the way it feels best for you. Clinton’s assertion of Executive Privilege in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton was cited in this article as setting the precedent for Cheney’s refusal to divulge the names of those on his energy task force. If you Google ‘Clinton + Executive Privilege” you’ll also get references to Clinton’s attempt to assert Executive Privilege to keep his aides from being questioned in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. The court denied that last, making Clinton the first president since Nixon to lose an Executive privilege case in court.

    Did you know about the Hillary Clinton case or about Bill’s attempt to invoke EP in the Lewinsky case before I posted here? Probably not. I don’t hate the Clintons. I do see them as they are and I did do a bit of homework.

  • John S.

    Guiliani? Romney?

    Or conversely, McCain, who crashed months ago just as you suggest Clinton is crashing now. Admittedly she has a lot less time to fix things.

    I thought it was interesting that Obama objured the title of Frontrunner to Clinton. He probably appreciates that being the Frontrunner designate would bring the bright light of media attention (snort, chuckle, chuckle, like that matters) on him. Which would certainly make his current campaign tactics a matter of discussion.

    But one last thought. Hillary has additional money in General Election contributions. Many of her contributers have given $4600 of which she can only spend $2300 now. I don’t think she’s going to give up the chance to spend that.

  • Lance:

    McCain isn’t necessarily the best comparison in the world. He was in the tank months ago financially and in the polls, and then experienced a meteoric rise.

    Clinton has been leading in the polls and raising vast sums of money for a year.

    There is a candidate who had big leads in the polls and raised a bunch of money, only to see his poll numbers stagnate while his rivals shot up the charts. He went into January having seen his national lead basically disappear. His top aides bypassed their paychecks that month. His campaign banked on a strategy (by default) of skipping a strong of early, small caucuses and primaries in the hopes of winning it all when a couple big states voted (Fla and Michigan) later in the month.

    That would be, of course, Rudy Giuliani.

    Seeing as how Hillary did have big leads in the polls, which have since evaporated; was raising tons of money, but is now near broke; has seen her main rival shoot up the charts; does have her staff foregoing pay this month; and is banking on a strategy of “surviving” a string of small caucuses and primaries in Feb to win it when the big states go to the polls in a month…I’d say Rudy, not, McCain, is probably the best comparison to Hillary right now. She needs to do what Rudy could not, which is win one or two of those early contests…I understand she’s already basically pulled out of Maryland and DC, but is doubling-down on Virginia. That’s the first big test. Not sure where else she could test at all, to be honest; maybe Wisconsin?

    But she can’t afford to go 0-9.

  • Michael,

    The thing is, Clinton has not tanked in the polls. Obama has caught up but he hasn’t passed her (not that the next polls might not show him ahead).

    Also, Hillary has the benefit of being in a one-on-one race with Barak. Rudy was lost in the crowd (thank God).

    You’re right she has to add victories in upcoming states as well as delegates from all the contests. Nice to know she’s going for Virginia.

  • @2 jen flowers said:

    71% will happily vote for Obama; 72% will happily vote for Clinton. Is there a rule somewhere that around 29% of each party is somewhat nuts?

    I’m surprised that we’re at over 60 responses here and no one has posted a link to the “Crazification Factor”.

    Short answer – yes, somewhere around 25-30% of our country is probably just plain stupid-nuts. Which kinda makes the whole “democracy experiment” a bit wobbly, but, once you internalize it, explains a helluva lot.

    And, like libertarians and Star Wars fans, the 25% stupid-nuts part of the population seems to be severely over-represented on the Internets.

  • Guiliani? Romney?

    Lance, I realize you are an ardent supporter of Clinton and prone to having your opinion skewed as thus, but let’s compare apples to apples.

    Giuliani was a terrible candidate that polled poorly and spent his money unwisely. The more people saw of him, the less they liked of him. In the end, he pulled out because he ran out of money.

    Romney is spending his own personal fortune, of which he has plenty. However, he is not gaining any traction for all that money he is spending and at some point he will decide that it just isn’t worth spending more of his son’s inheritance.

    Neither of these candidates were in the same situation that Clinton is. She is/was the front-runner, and is now engaged in a two-person race to the finish. Money will mean EVERYTHING to her campaign. Without it (and the ability to raise more of it), she will not be able to keep up with Obama.

  • Hi John S.

    Wasn’t Guiliani the national front runner too? Seems apples to apples to me.

    Yes, Hillary is going to have a hard time campaigning without money. I suspect that she does not have enough to be effective everywhere over the next two weeks. That means she’s playing prevent defense, and as anyone knows prevent defense loses games.

    The only possible advantage she has is that once Obama is the Frontrunner, he’s positions are going to be a lot more apparent to the Republicans and Independents who are voting for his ‘authenticity’ without realizing they’re getting a Tom Cleaver liberal in the bargin. Obama is the flip side of McCain. People keep projecting on him their hopes and dreams without considering their nightmares.

    And frankly I reject the assertion that I’m an ‘ardent’ Hillary supporter. I’m not wearing rose-colored glasses. I’m not happy Edwards dropped out. My belief that Hillary is a better General Election candidate than Obama is just that, a belief.

    I don’t hold with Obamamite notions that believing in Hillary is some extremist position.

    Romney just suspended his campaign?????

  • Comments are closed.