Hillary was beaten, pretty badly, by Barack Obama in fundraising this part quarter - Gay Patriot has some pretty good analysis on it:
Obama outraised her by $10 million (for the primaries). And he doesn’t have a former President doing fundraisers for her. That former President, Mrs. Clinton’s husband, being quite possibly the most popular living politician among Democrats.
I wonder how much less would she have raised had her husband not been headlining events for her.
That Obama did so well suggests there is a lot of enthusiasm for his candidacy (confirmed, in part, by my conversations with some of his supporters)–or perhaps it’s many Democrats supporting fear Hillary couldn’t win a general election. They are looking for a charismatic alternative to the bland (non-native) New Yorker.
While Mrs. Clinton does lead the polls for the Democratic nomination (and even leads many head-to-head matchups for the fall campaign), the fundraising totals suggests that Democrats may not be all that enthusiastic about their frontrunner.
Of course, this is the Clinton's we're talking about here - so it could be that given how much money she had at the end of her re-election bid in 2006, she's just easing off on fundraising in order to come on stronger later in the year in order to manufacture some "comeback kid" talk right before the early primaries (where she will likely get clobbered and thus needs a story line to carry her through to South Carolina and California). The Clinton's - and I really do think that Hillary was the primary motivator behind this - are masters at manipulating the MSM: they do, I believe, understand just how shallow most reporters are and how easily they are to hook...especially when you've got a message-shop which can write the reporters' stories (never underestimate how lazy the average MSMer is, either).
On the other hand, no one likes Hillary Clinton. It seems at times that a poll of her family would result in 45% unfavorable ratings. It would be interesting to find out if any of our Democratic/leftwing readership is enthusiastic about a Hillary presidency - and I don't mean being enthusiastic about getting rid of Bush; I mean that if the best Republican you can think of were President right now, you'd still think that what the nation needs more than anything else is another dose of Clinton. I can't shake the feeling that in spite of her front-runner status, Hillary's White House quest will prove, in the end, quixotic - we'll look back on 2008 and ask ourselves, "what was she thinking?".
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 2, 2007 02:38 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I wonder how much in donations Senator Obama is taking from, say, CAIR, or from individual Muslims? Remember, he's an apostate!
Posted by: Macker at July 2, 2007 07:35 AM
I am definitely not in favor of a candidate as divisive as Hillary Clinton. I hold out hope that this nation will start to come together again under new leadership in 2009.
Posted by: extramedium at July 2, 2007 08:40 AM
Nate - don't get me wrong - I've read quite a bit about the sort of across the aisle consensus building she has done in the senate, and I commend her on it.
I just think it's a bad idea to promote a candidate who has millions of conservatives (citizens) hating her before she even gets started. You might as well run Ted Kennedy or John Murtha while you're at it. We've had 6 years of this hate filled division and I'm sick of it. It won't feel any better with a Democrat in charge.
Plus, I don't think she can win. America is ready for a woman president - just not that woman.
Posted by: extramedium at July 2, 2007 09:28 AM
extramedium,
I agree. Our next president needs to be someone who will bring us together and that's not Senator Clinton.
Posted by: Casper at July 2, 2007 11:56 AM
This is the way it will turn out...Obama will win the democratic nomination; Hillary will be VP - and then this country will be in trouble.
Soros is involved with both Hillary and Obama. Hillary knew that no one would vote for her so they (meaning Hillary and Soros) but Obama in to raise the "excitement".
Posted by: semby at July 2, 2007 12:49 PM
there is no candidate of the 20 or so who are out there right now who can bring this country together.
Posted by: Nate [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 2, 2007 12:19 PM
Screw the Neocons and those willing to destroy the environment for profit; Al Gore can bring the decent majority of this country together. He is electable. He already received a majority vote.
Posted by: Plainjane at July 2, 2007 01:01 PM
Macker, I'm feeling lazy right now--what's an "apostate?"
Posted by: keefer at July 2, 2007 02:21 PM
The term "bring this country together" is a squishy media inspired term based on the Rodney King philosophy of...."cccan't wwweee alll just get along".
Fact is this country has always been split politically and will always be. The real question is can he dems loose the vitriolic language that they constantly use to attack the right?
Accusations such as:
Republicans want to starve babies and old people
Republicans want to poison your air and water
Republicans are bigots, homophobes, nativists, etc
Republicans want to get rich on the backs of the poor
None of these political mantras of the left are designed to "bring the country together"
Posted by: phnx at July 2, 2007 02:23 PM
They are both socialist, aren't they?
Posted by: Kahn at July 2, 2007 03:04 PM
extra,
I guess since this has been up for a while and we haven't seen an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, my theory is holding firm...of course, we are just one, little blog out here. But, I've also not seen any Hillary enthusiasm among Democrats I know - she is divisive, but I don't think that is what will finish her: while she is, in my view, an out-and-out socialist and will go pretty far to pander to the leftwing base of the Democratic Party, I don't think she can, even if she wants, go kook left enough at this point to satisfy the kook-leftists who will run the day at least in the early Democratic primaries. Hillary is probably counting on SC, CA and other later primaries to pull her fat out of the fire, but it is a truism that a front-runner who stumbles badly when the first votes are counted is frequently toast by early March. Personally, I'm still betting that Gore is going to come in and flatten everyone out there - we'll have to see about that.
Should, however, Hillary pull it off and get the Democratic nomination, I still don't see her winning - even if 2008 ends up being a generally anti-GOP year; Hillary's got some really high mountains to climb to get to 270 electoral votes...in fact, I don't see how its possible for her to win the necessary votes as it would require her to win at least a couple States which President Bush won twice (and as much as any GOPer or GOP-leaning voter might be angry with President Bush these days, I can't see a switch from Bush to Hillary).
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 2, 2007 06:18 PM
Screw the Neocons and those willing to destroy the environment for profit....plainjane
Ah, the language of cooperation and reconciliation from a liberal.
They really know how to build allies.
Posted by: neocon at July 2, 2007 06:26 PM
Finally Mark, you and I can agree on something. Hillary is very divisive. I think most Democrats see her as an opportunist willing to tell whatever crowd she happens to be in front of what they want to hear. Just see her spontaneous Southern Draw speech.
On the other hand, I don’t think the US is really ready for a woman or black president. Not the whole country, but the south in particular is not going to vote for either. They might say they would, but once they are in the voting booth, they are going to pull the other lever.
My prediction is, despite not raising anywhere near Obama/Hillary money, John Edwards wins two of the first three primaries, wins the nomination, and selects Obama as VP. With a southern son at the head of the party, more southerners vote Democrat, and minorities come out like never before crushing the GOP in the Executive and Legislative branches.
Posted by: Gaijin at July 2, 2007 09:00 PM
Gaijin,
A plausible scenario - but you are forgetting that Catholic voters, who do participate in high numbers in Democratic primaries, are down on Edwards in a big way due to his hiring of a couple anti-Catholic bigots to run his web operations. Old news, true - but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary's people will have that out there in force when the time is ripe.
Should he win the nomination, then I don't see him appealing at all to southern whites (he did, after all, eschew running for re-election to the Senate because he would have been crushed...and, of course, he made not even a dent in Bush's numbers in North Carolina in 2004). Picking Obama as Veep would help energise black voters in the south, but I don't see that being enough to tip any southern States into the Democratic collumn unless 2008 is a really big Democratic year - and, of course, if I were Obama I wouldn't even dream of being on anyone's Veep slot - even if he fades in 2008, he's still a young man and he can run for governor of Illinois in 2010 and add executive experience to his resume for a re-try in 2012 or 2016; running as a failed Veep would tarnish the image.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at July 3, 2007 01:05 AM
I haven't made up my mind which candidate (or party for that matter) I'll vote for.
I can say this though: If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, then I don't care if the GOP nominates a ham sandwich. That sandwich will get my vote.....unless the ham sandwich turns out to be Guliani. In which case I don't know what I'd do then. Clear?
Posted by: double_down at July 3, 2007 09:55 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I wonder how much in donations Senator Obama is taking from, say, CAIR, or from individual Muslims? Remember, he's an apostate!
I am definitely not in favor of a candidate as divisive as Hillary Clinton. I hold out hope that this nation will start to come together again under new leadership in 2009.
Nate - don't get me wrong - I've read quite a bit about the sort of across the aisle consensus building she has done in the senate, and I commend her on it.
I just think it's a bad idea to promote a candidate who has millions of conservatives (citizens) hating her before she even gets started. You might as well run Ted Kennedy or John Murtha while you're at it. We've had 6 years of this hate filled division and I'm sick of it. It won't feel any better with a Democrat in charge.
Plus, I don't think she can win. America is ready for a woman president - just not that woman.
extramedium,
I agree. Our next president needs to be someone who will bring us together and that's not Senator Clinton.
This is the way it will turn out...Obama will win the democratic nomination; Hillary will be VP - and then this country will be in trouble.
Soros is involved with both Hillary and Obama. Hillary knew that no one would vote for her so they (meaning Hillary and Soros) but Obama in to raise the "excitement".
there is no candidate of the 20 or so who are out there right now who can bring this country together.
Posted by: Nate [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 2, 2007 12:19 PM
Screw the Neocons and those willing to destroy the environment for profit; Al Gore can bring the decent majority of this country together. He is electable. He already received a majority vote.
Macker, I'm feeling lazy right now--what's an "apostate?"
The term "bring this country together" is a squishy media inspired term based on the Rodney King philosophy of...."cccan't wwweee alll just get along".
Fact is this country has always been split politically and will always be. The real question is can he dems loose the vitriolic language that they constantly use to attack the right?
Accusations such as:
Republicans want to starve babies and old people
Republicans want to poison your air and water
Republicans are bigots, homophobes, nativists, etc
Republicans want to get rich on the backs of the poor
None of these political mantras of the left are designed to "bring the country together"
They are both socialist, aren't they?
extra,
I guess since this has been up for a while and we haven't seen an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, my theory is holding firm...of course, we are just one, little blog out here. But, I've also not seen any Hillary enthusiasm among Democrats I know - she is divisive, but I don't think that is what will finish her: while she is, in my view, an out-and-out socialist and will go pretty far to pander to the leftwing base of the Democratic Party, I don't think she can, even if she wants, go kook left enough at this point to satisfy the kook-leftists who will run the day at least in the early Democratic primaries. Hillary is probably counting on SC, CA and other later primaries to pull her fat out of the fire, but it is a truism that a front-runner who stumbles badly when the first votes are counted is frequently toast by early March. Personally, I'm still betting that Gore is going to come in and flatten everyone out there - we'll have to see about that.
Should, however, Hillary pull it off and get the Democratic nomination, I still don't see her winning - even if 2008 ends up being a generally anti-GOP year; Hillary's got some really high mountains to climb to get to 270 electoral votes...in fact, I don't see how its possible for her to win the necessary votes as it would require her to win at least a couple States which President Bush won twice (and as much as any GOPer or GOP-leaning voter might be angry with President Bush these days, I can't see a switch from Bush to Hillary).
Screw the Neocons and those willing to destroy the environment for profit....plainjane
Ah, the language of cooperation and reconciliation from a liberal.
They really know how to build allies.
Finally Mark, you and I can agree on something. Hillary is very divisive. I think most Democrats see her as an opportunist willing to tell whatever crowd she happens to be in front of what they want to hear. Just see her spontaneous Southern Draw speech.
On the other hand, I don’t think the US is really ready for a woman or black president. Not the whole country, but the south in particular is not going to vote for either. They might say they would, but once they are in the voting booth, they are going to pull the other lever.
My prediction is, despite not raising anywhere near Obama/Hillary money, John Edwards wins two of the first three primaries, wins the nomination, and selects Obama as VP. With a southern son at the head of the party, more southerners vote Democrat, and minorities come out like never before crushing the GOP in the Executive and Legislative branches.
Gaijin,
A plausible scenario - but you are forgetting that Catholic voters, who do participate in high numbers in Democratic primaries, are down on Edwards in a big way due to his hiring of a couple anti-Catholic bigots to run his web operations. Old news, true - but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary's people will have that out there in force when the time is ripe.
Should he win the nomination, then I don't see him appealing at all to southern whites (he did, after all, eschew running for re-election to the Senate because he would have been crushed...and, of course, he made not even a dent in Bush's numbers in North Carolina in 2004). Picking Obama as Veep would help energise black voters in the south, but I don't see that being enough to tip any southern States into the Democratic collumn unless 2008 is a really big Democratic year - and, of course, if I were Obama I wouldn't even dream of being on anyone's Veep slot - even if he fades in 2008, he's still a young man and he can run for governor of Illinois in 2010 and add executive experience to his resume for a re-try in 2012 or 2016; running as a failed Veep would tarnish the image.
I haven't made up my mind which candidate (or party for that matter) I'll vote for.
I can say this though: If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, then I don't care if the GOP nominates a ham sandwich. That sandwich will get my vote.....unless the ham sandwich turns out to be Guliani. In which case I don't know what I'd do then. Clear?