Daily Kos

It's The Money -- And It's Over

Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:34:01 AM PDT

For Hillary, money gets A LOT harder to come by after tonight. After next Tuesday, she'll have almost nothing coming in.

Look at it this way, it costs Superdelegates nothing to delay their decision to support Obama. Doesn't cost them a dime. But campaign donors? That's money, folks. Money requires a MUCH higher burden of proof than support -- proof that it's not just money going down a hole. Support is vapor. Air. Money is an investment. Money... is fucking money!

And even before tonight, even with Hillary's much touted $10 million in four days or whatever it was, Hillary was bring in the dollars at 1/3rd the rate Obama was. Yes, that's since Super Tuesday.

So if it was 1/3rd of Obama's intake before tonight's crushing losses, what will it be now? 1/4? 1/5th? Less?

None of the TV commentators talked money tonight and what this does to her. Her donors know it though, and so does she. More than anything else, tonight was the money tipping point and that will bring this to a close a lot quicker than lagging support.

Like soon.

I've been around the financial portion of campaigns a bit (didn't manage it but I saw it) and it's nearly always what shuts them down. Money is going to shut Hillary down WAY before we need to worry about Superdelegates or Michigan or Florida. In fact, Hillary's campaign has no intention of using Superdelegates or Michigan or Florida. They're just trotting those out in front of their donors in desperation. Not their supporters. Their donors.

Go over to Hillary is 44 dot com and you'll see the usual calls for donations and people saying they sent in $10.44 just today, just like it was a week ago.

The difference is that last week most those donors were actually sending in that money instead of just typing it on a blog.

Money is a hell of a thing. Look at the Intrade elections futures tonight. You can buy Obama for 73.5 and Hillary at 28. Watch it this week and next Tuesday night. Intrade doesn't track support very tightly but it DOES track campaign contributions nearly perfectly, because it's the same thing. Money.

A campaign contribution is an investment.

Hillary's money dries up horribly after tonight. More and more, people asking others to "donate donate donate!", are probaly not donating donating donating themselves. Some of the folks bragging they donated actually did, but that tracks Intrade also. The more Hillary's Intrade number drops, they fewer of those bragging about donating actually did. Note: this doesn't make them bad people, just yer average online political person. They, in fact, HAVE donated before. They're just doing it less and less.

This may be hard for some people to believe, but anyone associated with campaigns knows it is true. Hillary knows it's true.

Texas and Ohio are going to cost money Hillary doesn't have and can't get. You might think she should be putting all her money into Wisconsin, in order to avoid a further choke on donations. That she isn't, means the majority of the damage was done tonight. She's putting what money she has into Texas and Ohio in the hope of keeping Obama from increasing in the polls we'll start seeing. Won't matter though.

It's over tonight. Maybe I should say it's decided tonight, but it will be over sooner than the talking heads are guessing and it will be over because of money.

Tags: Campaign Finance, 2008, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 101 comments

  •  McCain wasn't bust when he had almost no money (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    highacidity

    What makes you think Clinton is different? Media popularity moves in cycles and they might turn against Obama like piranaha's, that's her only real shot.

    Cthulhu 08, why vote for a lesser evil? Economic -6.12 Social -7.23

    by Timothy Scriven on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM PDT

    •  McCain went bust early on (5+ / 0-)

      And was able to secure a loan based on his mailing lists. The point being that would have time to solicit and refill his coffers before the race was over.

      If her money runs out now, there's not enough game time left for loans (other than personal ones).

      •  McCain still had 6 mos, 6+ opponents (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        kafkananda

        ...Completely different situation.  Without roughly half a year's time, a diverse array of opponents and the implosion of Giuliani, John McCains improbable comeback would have been much closer to impossible.  Time and a diffused oppostion are not on Hillary Clinton's side, so the McCain analogy is ridiculous in this case beyond a "warm fuzzy" level.

        "My Friends, that kid drank my metamu..milkshake." --John McCain, 11/9/08--

        by Ericwmr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:10:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  When did that happen? (12+ / 0-)

      It happened to McCain way back last Summer. There wasn't much going on. Because there wasn't much going on, McCain borrowed a little and it only took a little because he didn't need much then.

      By the time he needed to start spending more, the money was flowing in. He's spending the shit out of it now because now is when that happens.

      Obama's spending loads. More than anyone else, but he also has more coming in than anyone else (in History!).

      Hillary's spending like crazy now too, because now is when you do that. If she'd been in money trouble back when McCain was, like McCain, it wouldn't have hurt her as bad.

      Shutting the money intake valve right now is disastrous. And that's what's happening to Hillary.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:46:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  McCain is a Hero Warrior Pentagon's Nominee (0+ / 0-)

      He's got, shall we say, certain advantages.

      Try to imagine the Pentagon going to bat for a Clinton.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:59:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  fishgrease--just one point (6+ / 0-)

    of clarification:  Even that $10 million that Clinton's campaign took in is somewhat illusory, because $5 million of it was, as I understand it, spent immediately to settle the preceding personal loan owed to Hillary/Bill.  (Btw, from an accounting point of view, I would think that it is probably appropriate to pay off that personal loan first, notwithstanding that it may look bad.)  If you think of it in terms of donations to what should have been a solvent campaign, the actual take was not $10 million but $5 million.  Which is not good

    •  I wasn't clear on the loan (5+ / 0-)

      but I think you're probably right about that.

      Right on the money!

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

      This was just a cash flow issue. They just spent the 5 million and raised it afterwards instead of before, is all. The actual take was 10 million, since they repaid the loan and had 5 million left over.

      It is an indicator of poor cash management, that's for sure.  

      •  that's right but (0+ / 0-)

        I meant in terms of the impression intended, the 10M has been depicted as money available to spend on offices, stationary, whatnot, after the day when they started receiving those donations.  In fact only 5M could be used for tangible campaign uses going forward.  The other 5M was already spent/wasted on stuff before that day.  Aside from that I think we're talking about the same thing.

        •  and also, to sort of illustrate this, (0+ / 0-)

          there's the fact that her campaign was proposing that some staffers go without pay for February.  The illusion with that nice round 10M figure was that all of 10M was going to be available to pay the staff's Feb salary after all, and also available for all the other campaign expenses moving forward. In fact, as of Feb. 7 (or whatever it was when they trumpeted the 10M figure), only 5M was available to cover Feb salary and the other expenses moving forward.

          .... At that, I wonder if it's even certain that they actually did receive 10M in cash donations during those few days as they claimed....

          •  Well, there's no doubt that Patti Doyle (0+ / 0-)

            is getting blamed for blowing through a LOT of money and not keeping Hillary and others apprised of the impending financial problem. There's an article by Joshua Green in the Atlantic that details some of this.

            http://www.theatlantic.com/...

            I'm not that intrigued by this level of campaign minutia, but the impression is of some managerial snafus that, should they arise in, say, the executive branch of a government (for instance), could be a real problem.

            "Ready from Day One" indeed!

  •  Hillary is the Frontrunner (20+ / 0-)

    She is flush with cash!!!

    She is leading in Wisconsin - hell, she's flush with cheese!!

    She's building a Berlin like firewall in Texas and Ohio as we speak.

    I'd be surprised if Hillary doesn't win Wisconsin by 10 pts.

    And we all know she's gonna raise, atleast, $30 million this month.

    Barack's only hope is if uses the force !

    Barack, listen to Jedi master, Al - use the force, use the force!!

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:40:47 AM PDT

  •  I was thinking about this earlier tonight. (4+ / 0-)

    There's a six week stretch in between Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Throughout that time, Obama will have the money, the delegates, the money, the votes, the money, and the momentum.

    Can you imagine scouting for money in the Clinton campaign during those six weeks? "Hold on, there's one more firewall!" isn't going to open wallets--not when the media spends those six weeks talking about how Obama will square up against McCain as if Clinton's no longer in the race.

    Texas and Ohio are almost two months away from her Next Last Stand™. It's not going to work. The walls can't hold.

    a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil!

    by haruki on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:43:34 AM PDT

    •  haruki you're assuming (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kpardue, Judgment at Nuremberg

      that O-man may lose but at least he will not get blown out in Texas and Ohio, and not assuming that O-man will outright win at one of the two, right?

      I'd think that, so long as O-man can keep it within single digits in both those two states, it's his nomination to lose (pace Al Rodgers!).

      For that matter, what I really think is that he will win Texas and then it's game.over.

      •  I think he's going to take Texas (5+ / 0-)

        The pundits have forgotten about the large AA vote in Texas . .

        •  he only loses hispanics 2-1 (5+ / 0-)

          she loses blacks by 90%.

          he can make inroads with hispanics. her campaign's line that hispanics are too racist to vote for a black man is complete bull. they just want to get to know him first.

          the black vote, however, is NEVER coming back to Hillary Clinton, nor is she even trying. she sends Bill Clinton to black churches, but not for their vote, for the sake of their reputation.

          he takes Texas, if we work for it.

          I mean, how bad could Senator John McPalpatine possibly be?

          by terra on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:58:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and the big news is that Obama won hispanics (6+ / 0-)

            in the Potomac primaries - 53-47 was the breakdown. He's got the time to grab a good chunk of the Hispanic vote in Texas - also I have heard that Blacks and Latinos have good political relationships in Texas - it's not like California . .

            •  And THH, too. (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              EJP in Maine, TomY, Fonsia, Capt Morgan

              Texas Hates Hillary.

              Them pickup driving, bakkee chewing, catfishing, Friday night high school football watchin white, male Texas Democrats HATE them some Hillary Clinton!

              Now, do I think she deserves all that hate? No, I don't.

              But they do.

              It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

              by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:27:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ya know that's kind of (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                EJP in Maine

                the suspicion I'd had all along, but haven't seen or heard it articulated recently.  Mebbe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but definitely Texas is very different from California, say.

                If the white Texans I've known remind me of anyone (met quite a few, being from Louisiana), it's panhandle Floridians.  Wonder how the Florida primary vote went in the panhandle, as compared to downstate......

              •  hold up, it's not just texas MEN ... (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                sam07, alba, John Poet, Virginia mom

                don't forget good ol' Molly !
                http://www.cnn.com/...
                from 2006 ....

                The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

                and she ends with ...

                Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

                well molly, we did find that someone.
                (it's a good article by Ivins.. go read it.
                damn I wish she was still around. :(

                "We've got a world to save. Don't confuse me with details." - Captain America

                by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:36:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And he pretty well split the Latino vote in (5+ / 0-)

              New Mexico, as I recall. NM Latinos are a lot like Texas Latinos, and not like Nevada/Calif. Latinos.

              Plus, Texas is a red state. It's Obama who wins red states, not Hillary.

              And it's an open primary with a dash of caucus thrown in like hot sauce.

              Yummy.

              May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

              by Fonsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:36:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  He could also... (0+ / 0-)

            ...lose Texas in the popular vote in single digits because of high Hispanic turnout in the Valley and San Antonio but win more delegates because of the caucus structure and the way the delegates are apportioned.

            Excellent analysis over at BOR.  Essentially, the high Hispanic districts have fewer delegates because of lower turnout in past elections.

            But there are lots of variables with the Hispanics in Texas, and it's not likely he loses them 2-1.

            "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

            by DC Pol Sci on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:57:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Her Campaign Is Wrong About Hispanics (0+ / 0-)

            You know how people like to say 'some of my best friends are black'?  Well, in Texas I'm that black friend to some hispanic democrats.  And what friends are telling me is that they thnk Hillary is trying to play them for fools.  During the California debate, her response to the question of who is responsible for lost African-American jobs has been noted and interpreted as throwing hispanics under the bus.

            In response, I have heard some Hispanic labor leaders wondering out loud if perhaps it is time for the 'old slaves and the new slaves' to come together for economic justice.

            I think Clinton is in more trouble than she knows.

      •  Yup, that too. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        DC Pol Sci, EJP in Maine

        As long as he's within single digits in both states, there won't be much of a shift in who gets more delegates out of TX/OH.

        And yeah, the optimist in me says he takes one of the two; either TX or OH. And if that happens, then like you said, it's over.

        a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil!

        by haruki on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:53:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Watch the polls in Texas (8+ / 0-)

        because that affects Hillary's donations.

        My thesis: when it's over, it's over because of money.

        Corollary: It's as good as over now.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  New Rule (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        scrutinizer, nalin, dss, John Poet

        No one ever says "O-man" ever again, or I'm switching to Gravel. Seriously.

        jaiapprovedthis - Because I am right about things.
        Abolish Superdelegates by 2012

        by Jaiwithani on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, but with three weeks to go to the vote, (0+ / 0-)

        I think he has a pretty good chance of winning Ohio as well.  And money certainly won't be at issue.

        Even though the latest poll showed Hillary leading by 17 in Ohio, Obama has closed gaps bigger than that before, and didn't have three weeks to do it in... and by March 4, his supporters will likely be more excited to turn out than those who would vote for Clinton, who will have to be pretty demoralized by then...

        I think there's a pretty good shot at Obama closing this thing down on March 4th.

  •  I believe that you are right - the pundits (7+ / 0-)

    explained tonight how HRC would have to win the remaining primaries by substantial margins to catch Obama in the pledged delegates. Yet HRC basically ceded Maryland, DC and Virginia because she did not have the resources to compete (I live in DC - HRC had no presence at my voting place - I received no robocalls from her campaign; on the Obama front, I received several robocalls from the Obama campaign (Michelle Obama and Mayor Adrian Fenty) and two personal calls; the Obama forces were out in force at my polling place). And HRC seems about to cede Wisconsin too . .

    And the Texas demographics do not favor HRC despite punditry arguments to the contrary - the African American vote is almost equal to the Latino vote in Texas - so that's a reach for her. Pennsylvania's primary is very far away and its demographics are not that different from Delaware's and Maryland's - two strong Obama states. In other words, I don't see the firewall out there for HRC, and donors of real money are likely to see the same lay of the land . . .  

  •  and you know what (4+ / 0-)

    lemme just say here, as no one is going to read this except us sick fuckers ;) , that even if Hillary had all the fuckin money in the world right now, she can't win this thing, because, after seeing her speech tonight, I see someone with DOOM written all over her.  Her campaign ain't got the candidate, they ain't got the message, there is no power on earth that can improve the campaign or the candidate in time; the times, the whole zeitgeist, has past her by. And Hillary just looks and sounds spent

    I actually felt genuinely badly for her, watching the speech.  I'd like to have seen O-man stomp her when she's peaking, not when's she's a crumpling zeppelin like she is

    The one thing that could save her candidacy is maybe if in the upcoming two debates O-man picks his nose on camera or something

  •  We Don't Know (8+ / 0-)

    That's what is missing from this analysis. Clinton is probably not swimming in cash, but that doesn't mean she can't go to March 4th. And if she can make it past March 4th, then she can drag out the nomination for many more weeks.

    Even if she can't win it outright (though I wouldn't count her out yet), if she keeps on campaigning, she can delay the de facto nomination and rallying of the party. That hurts us, one way or another.

    Don't get cocky, donate and volunteer for Obama, and get this nomination wrapped up as soon as possible. Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas. We can do it.

  •  I mean, as a donor, if you went to CNN, (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nalin, seabrook, Morgan Sandlin, Fonsia

    and realized your candidate hadn't won a state in eight? tries (hell, I've lost count), that would make it really hard to punch in the old credit card numbers at the "donate" page. People like to support winners--or at least people who look like they're on the path to victory. You can even see it in campaign body language. Right now, Team Obama is focusing on getting every last vote out in every single state. Team Clinton seems to be looking at a map where the only states in America are Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This has got to be ringing 9iu11iani bells for any donor.

    a gallon of blood for a gallon of oil!

    by haruki on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:02:50 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      DC Pol Sci, nalin, hhex65, haruki, shunpike

      It's funny that when all this started, Hillary had what everyone described as an obscene amount of money.

      It's gotta keep coming in, though. You're right. Support is cheap. Endorsements are cheap.

      But not money. You want MY money, you better look like you're going to win. Because, you know, it's my fucking MONEY you're talking about here!

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i pretty much agree with the spirit of this diary (4+ / 0-)

    I had a conversation with my mom about the inevitability of Obama.  She doesn't know much about politics and asked me.  The way I put it is that we are watching the death of the Clinton campaign in slow motion.  Since they are the Clinton's, and therefore will not quit until it is clear they cannot win by any means necessary, it will get dragged out.  However, the campaign is essentially over because short of a big development it will be impossible for her to catch him in pledged delegates.  

    And that was before last night's results came in.  I was astounded at the margins.  Smallest MOV at 24?  That's ridiculous.  And the donors are seeing that.

    I was a disillusioned Dean Democrat...then I had something to fight for again.

    by New Left 2004 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:20:53 AM PDT

    •  Yup! (3+ / 0-)

      And the reason Hillary's campaign is floating all this stuff about Superdelegates and Florida and Michigan is because:

      1. They know the media loves outlandish stuff like that.
      1. So the donors think they have this ace in the hole.

      The Clintons would never go so far as to try to use those to overrule the voters choices, even by a single delegate. People can say the Clintons will do ANYTHING to win, but it's just not true. They wouldn't do THAT. It's all desperate talk for the donors, most of whom also know it's bullshit. It probably helps with the $5 and $10 folks.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:40:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also All the Dream Ticket Crap HC/BO (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        DC Pol Sci, John Poet

        Talk about begging.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:58:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah! That was big! (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          DC Pol Sci

          That was a bunch of people who really really love Hillary and think she's entitled to be president. Her turn.

          That probably netted her a few million bucks right there.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  i'm not so sure (0+ / 0-)

        It depends on the money.  I think as long as the Clintons can see a way for them to get the nomination, any way, they'll try.  But that means continuing to raise money.  No one is going to have their arms twisted by a broke and flailing Clinton campaign.  How far the Clintons will go depends not on their decency, because they have none, but on the money situation.  Which will get very bad soon, so it's a moot point.

        I was a disillusioned Dean Democrat...then I had something to fight for again.

        by New Left 2004 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:00:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See, I find myself thinking that and then (4+ / 0-)

          I look at all these good Kossacks who love her to pieces. And I look at how good a president Bill was, compared to any other in the modern era.

          And I look at all the good Bill has done with his foundation and at how much the man is loved internationally. I just don't think that many people with viewpoints so similar to mine could be that wrong about the Clintonian character.

          I could be wrong, I know that. But it would break my heart.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:05:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want to be the one to destroy (13+ / 0-)

            those memories for you.  And I don't have specific memories of the Clinton presidency, so I'm basing my view on a reading of the history.  I was 18 when he left office, so I remember, but vaguely; not the way I remember the last 7 years.

            What I will do is tell you what I see when I look at the Clintons.  I see a team.  They have been a team from the beginning in Arkansas.  And they are the team that brought us triangulation.  Essentially, through triangulation, they gained power for themselves while making their allies look bad.  And while that elevated them to the White House, it killed the party for over a decade.  Triangulation in the 1992 and 1996 elections and subsequent administration was a direct contributing factor to:

            -the loss of Congress in 1994
            -the failure of universal health care in 93
            -a weakening of the grassroots of the party, as the Clinton way of doing politics was Clinton centric, relying on big donors and big media while ignoring the rank and file
            -and most stinging, the loss of Gore in the 2000 election

            In my view, the consequences of the Clinton adminstration, politically, were a disaster.  It set the party back strategically, in my view, until 2004 and the Dean campaign.  Dean showed the way by cultivating a vast support system of small, repeat donors.  He also pioneered the neomodern "movement campaign", relying on an army of volunteers to move the ball.   Clearly, the Obama campaign is essentially Dean 2.0 with a much more charismatic spokesman, from an organizational model point of view. It's open, it's inclusive and it's transparent; everything the Clintons are not and never will be.

            For me, that is the primary Clinton legacy: a politics of "me first", that alienates your supporters and allies, weakens your grassroots and makes people you need to be effective look bad.  There is also the policy legacy: NAFTA, health care failure, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which deregulated the industry and is directly responsible for the consolidation of media ownership in this country, stifling our debate and limiting our options) and a weak energy policy that contributed to our current situation.  Oh, and I wouldn't want to forget about the crown jewel of triangulation, welfare reform.  The ultimate triangulation hack job, selling the weakest among us down the river, while making your Democratic allies opposing it look weak and unreasonable.  And on top of the ashes stood Bill Clinton, two term president, yes, but also an abysmal failure by every progressive and movement building measure.

            I was a disillusioned Dean Democrat...then I had something to fight for again.

            by New Left 2004 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:42:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can't argue with any of that. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Alexander G Rubio, MingPicket

              I think it's all correct. Increasingly I think the same things.

              I just don't like thinking those things.

              It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

              by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:05:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  thank you for this statement (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              MingPicket

              about 99% of my posts on DailyKos for the last six months have been angry and inarticulate attempts to what you just said as plainly and civilly as can be said.

              Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

              by tamandua on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:37:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I couldn't have said it better myself (0+ / 0-)

              And I've tried. Several times.

              People end up asking me "Why do you hate them so much?" My boyfriend thinks I'm being irrational about it.

              And it's not that I hate them. I don't. But I cannot blindly embrace them. I cannot trust them. No matter how hard I try.

              But when I see the Clintons, this is what I see. I'm a little younger than you (16 when Bill left office), but my observations are exactly the same.

              The only thing I add in is DOMA and DADT. I am increasingly perplexed when other gay males say they are so excited to have Bill back in the White House.

  •  I don't think it's just about money. (12+ / 0-)

    I think it's about 'not listening'.

    I was just about in tears tonight watching Hillary.  There was a time when I really wanted her to be president -- in 2004 I was really angry that she didn't run.  I am sad that that time has passed.

    The other thing that made me sad is that her choices have been to listen to the Carvilles and the pundits and, yes, the lobbyists.  That doesn't mean that she wouldn't make a great president or that she doesn't deserve to win.  I just don't think she realized how much citizens want to be heard right now and she wasn't listening.

    She has the platforms, the talking points, the ability, and the plans that could turn this country around.  But Obama is actually responding to the people -- and the people respond to him with votes (and money).

    Every time she says something stupid about a demographic, it becomes more apparent that she is either not listening or she is doing so selectively.  

    With all of the money spent on 'consultants' in her campaign, it is astounding that no one has advised her of the human need to be validated.  I think it is something that she used to know, but let it slip away in the frenzy of the game plan.

    And the real irony is that she could have listened for free -- it takes no money to hear our voices.

    Investigate! Impeach! Indict! Incarcerate!

    by Cato come back on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:35 AM PDT

    •  Hasn't always just been about money. (4+ / 0-)

      But right now, that's mainly it. At this final stage of the campaign for the nomination. And when Hillary finally drops out, she won't say it's about the money, but it will be.

      My point is that money is what ends campaigns.

      It's probably very little of what starts them. It's rarely the seed.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:09:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's why the money is drying up for her. (5+ / 0-)

        I guess my point is more about why people are choosing to give to Obama instead of Hillary.

        I keep hearing that people like to back 'winners'.  I think there is much more to it than that.  I spend my money to get the person into office that I think represents me and my ideals.

        I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the ideals, abilities, or platforms of the two frontrunners.  But it seems like Obama is more likely to work for 'us' because he is actually listening -- therefore, he gets my money.

        Investigate! Impeach! Indict! Incarcerate!

        by Cato come back on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:21:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great points (4+ / 0-)

          and that's why I started contributing to Obama financially.

          But as much as I'd like to think I'd have the character to still be contributing to him if his and Hillary's predicaments were switched, it's just not true.

          I would have stopped answering his emails with my debit card, well, right about now. Which is my point.

          Right now.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:30:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  agreed (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Cato come back, trivium

          i gave (quite generously i might add, despite my financial situation) to the Edwards campaign in the months leading up to Iowa. Even though he chose public financing and the CW was that was going to bite him in the end. And even after Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina, I continued to give. Why? Not because I felt like i was backing the frontrunner, or the one with the most cash to be able to really take this thing. But because I believed in his message. I wanted that message to be our country's message.

          Once he dropped out, and after quite a bit of listening to both Obama and Hillary very closely, I started giving Obama my time, and recently some money. Why? Not because I felt like I was backing the frontrunner, or the one most likely to succeed. In fact, going into Super Tuesday, I was quite sure Hillary would amass a huge state and delegate lead. But two days before that, I donated to him for the first time. I donated because I believed in his message. I wanted that message to be our country's message.

          His message may not be as aggressively against what's wrong with our country as Edwards' message is. But is something else. Something inspiring. I believe that good things will come with inspiration. I'm not really sure I get Clinton's message. And from listening to her speak, I'm not so sure she has one. She seems to be running on 'Hillary', and Obama seems to be running on our drive, our hopes - something inside all of us that makes our eyes light up and allows us to dream. That is so unique in contemporary politics. It inspires you to want to do something. How can you note donate time and/our money to that?

          Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

          by nalin on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:35:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Execellent Comment (0+ / 0-)

      You sum up so much of what many of us feel.

      "I'm a war President" - GWB

      by Deadicated Marxist on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As Mark Hanna (McKinley's Campaign Manager) said: (6+ / 0-)

    "There are only two things that are important in politics. The first is money. And I can't remember what the second one is."

  •  yeah, shockingly, I'm feeling a bit sorry for her (5+ / 0-)

    and , to be honest(no flaming me please...I'm being sincere), John McCain as well. D'you see him tonite? Really, quite a sight. He looked like he'd already lost. And it all seemed so stale and sad. not that I REALLY feel sorry for them, but it is kind of a shame . Like a slow motion train wreck. Like you said, watching you're parents grow old .
    But also we learn as we grow that it is the way of things. turn turn turn and all that jazz.
    Still, I'd feel much better if she gave some version of "don't cry for me Argentina" when she finally concedes.
    But it's like she (and McCain as well) just doesn't stand a chance, in the end.  they are up against something that hasn't been seen in active American politicians in more than a generation; they are up against a statesman. Both Hillary and McCain are good at the game of politics and they've honed their craft well, but up against a figure like Barack, they just don't match up.
    But yes, I do feel a little sympathy for her , despite all the things that have happened. Maybe she'll drop out before it gets too embarrassing .
    that's all  i got.

    "We've got a world to save. Don't confuse me with details." - Captain America

    by dantrotheplanetman on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:42:22 AM PDT

    •  Great comment. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Alexander G Rubio, bhumiya

      And you gotta think of what these people Obama is trouncing think of how fair life is. Clinton and McCain have had to fight for money. It's been the biggest and most persistent job of their lives. They've literally spent more time on the phone asking for money than anything in their professional lives.

      And along comes Obama. It's a good thing being president is the end of the political road, because Obama doesn't even know how to raise money. Not compared to anyone else who has ever run for president. He doesn't have a clue.

      He's never had to ask for money. People just threw it at him. Now, I contribute via the emails his campaign sends, asking for money. But if they didn't send those emails, I'd find where to contribute online or by mail or whatever.

      But all this is good. Obama will be beholding to the people. We CHOSE him. We financed him and we elected him. Good for him!

      But I can imagine how other politicians feel about it. They gotta think it just ain't fair.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:16:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush Disgrace, Clinton Tarnish: Generational... (0+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    trivium

    We are seeing a new narrative forming at this very moment, tonight. The political bookends for the last generation are these: Bush Disgrace and Clinton Tarnish. A new generation is here and with it a new kind of politics. It accepts that we are one nation with a strong federal government that can be used to solve the health care problem, rebuild our infrastructure and fund responsible and equitable social and relief programs. It also accepts that the people must challenge a strong central government on foreign policy, civil liberties and equal representation against corporate interests.

    The politics of "state's rights" (code for discrimination of one kind or another), religious differences, abortion, "family values" and "fiscal responsibility" will have to take a backseat this time. We all feel a little shutout right now.  No stomach for discrimination. We all feel a little shaken in our faith right now.  No stomach for religious bashing. We all  know someone who's had an abortion, or is a struggling single parent, or has a marriage and family ending in emotional disaster.  No stomach for the abortion debate. One out of every seven to ten people we know are gay. No stomach for gay bashing. We all feel financially fucked and we know that as hard as it is to imagine, our country's finances are way more fucked than our own. No stomach for head-in-the-sand platitudes.

    No, my friends we only have the stomach for one thing: hope against hope that we can make a difference and bear the weight that we are placing on our shoulders. Bush? Clinton? Please. We have no time for despair or nostalgia. We only have time to hope and get to the work of saving this nation!

  •  Financial & Human Capital = Obama Victory (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    trivium

    You're right, it's the money -- but only because Obama has already completely outflanked Clinton in terms of volunteer energy and participation.  And it's been this way from the moment he announced he was running.  

    She'd need a Romney-sized fortune, and be willing to part with half of it, to pay temp staff to do the things that Obama's volunteers are out there doing for free.

  •  Ha, We Should Start a 'DKos Nights' ala Baywatch (0+ / 0-)

    The DKos answer to the "Baywatch Nights" question. OK, I know. What question?  But seriously, we should reserve certain topics for a "DKos Nights" contingency. You how reading DKos is like watching the news a month in advance?  Well, reading "DKos Nights" is like reading DKos, well, a night in advance. ;)

  •  How McCain won...logic and illogic (4+ / 0-)

    It was Obama that helped McCain win. Now, I'm not crazy...didn't even stay up all night to find out who won!

    McCain is the Bob Dole of 2008. Things were already gloomy for the Republicans before the primaries. Then they saw their "field." Ron Paul, for Cripe's Sake, was the most interesting.

    Then Obama shows up. Republicans are mean, domineering, cheap and bigoted but some are not stupid. The Republican this time around is going to lose, and lose badly.

    So they look around for someone who needs a "turn" in the limelight, but whose loss won't mean much. Not only that, but the loss by a "centrist" Republican will reaffirm their far-right beliefs in a weird sort of way. They land on McCain, the stooge.

    It wasn't McCain's money, or lack of it, that got him the nomination--it was Obama's smile.

  •  Clinton 26 & falling, Obama 74 & rising (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Deadicated Marxist

    And the trading volume has reached an all-time high.

    I'd actually like to see her hold out, but I'm not sure how she can, if indeed Intrade tracks contributions.

Permalink | 101 comments