Hillary must be combing the farmland and deserts of western China getting more and more donors signed up.

Did Media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton, approve the release of the 7000 extra donar story?

Obama still has well over 350,000 donors this year, which at least 100,000 more than Hillary; that's a lot more impressive than beating someone by 7,000 donors in a single quarter.

Jerry, do you have a job?

Hillary attracting more donor, do you really believe that domini-ur mama ? I think you need to get off the business of journalism.

Obama has beaten Clinton in all ways despite her huge political machine. She can only bost of 7,000 more donors in 3rd quarters, what a shame. What happen in the 1st and 2nd qrts is a myth to the press, eh.

Now i know why America don't take the press seriously. They will choose to report the spin rather than the facts. Shame on you Dominico and get a life.

Larry:

A very good paying job, just got a fat promotion to help pay all the taxes I'll have to pay if Hillary wins.

All the smoke that Hillary is blowing in the wind (thanks to Media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton) will catch up to everybody sooner or later.  I know people that were poor during The first Bush administration, voted for Clinton in 1992, stayed poor all 8 years, voted for Gore and are still poor today.  

Were Teddy & Mary Jo in the back, with Monica doing a Lewinsky in the front?:

Clinton forced drive to Mass. campaign

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007

LOWELL, Mass. (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton had to drive from his surburban New York home to a campaign in Lowell after a plane he was supposed to fly in developed problems before take off.

Clinton says he had to (quote) "drive like a mad person" to Lowell, 30 kilometers north of Boston, to campaign and raise money for Democratic Congressional candidate Niki Tsongas.

Well: Can you think of anything more frightening than Bubba at the wheel, driving "like a mad person"?

No Jerry .. Hillary is not combing the farmlands of China gathering more donors ..it's very simple...the american voter is sick of the GOP whose only mission in this nation is to continue robbing the american tax payer to pay for that god awful Iraq war and allowing more americans to die for no reason.

At the rate the democrats are raising money the message is clear .. no more loser republicans in the White House.

jerry, lets continue to do what the gop does...make the next generation pay for what you buy.
just because your daddy pays your bills, is not a reason to not grow up.

"Well: Can you think of anything more frightening than Bubba at the wheel, driving "like a mad person"? "

any republican in office

So Jerry has a good paying job in Corpus Christi, TX where the median income for a family is $41,672. My car costs more than that ... maybe I should be a republican ... NOT!  

The New York Times correctly notes the bigger surprise from yesterday's Clinton money release. "Perhaps most surprising was that the Clinton campaign reported attracting at least 7,000 more new donors than Mr. Obama, depriving his campaign of the bragging rights that he was more popular with contributors despite Mrs. Clinton’s strong performance in opinion polls and televised debates."

it would be interesting to know how many of hillary's new donors actually exist, most likely lobbyist handed out money to imaginary donors, it obviously is not the first time hillary has used this tactic, god forbid the media actually exposed this farce for what it is

a more corrupt corporate run political machine you will not find

I voted for Clinton in '92 and '96 and Gore in 2000 and was able to have both my kids have stay at home parents for their first 6 mos ea in '94 and '96.  When I got divorced in '98, I was able to keep my house on a single mom's salary (I get minimal child support and NO alimony or other support).  My salary has increased $30,000 in 9 years, but 70% of my raises came in the first 6.  My company still gives me a raise, but is so unsure about the economy's future, that they've scaled back considerably.
I raise both my son & daughter w/ the same values and aspirations and cross my fingers and hope to whatever god may or may not be out there that I'm telling them the truth when I assure them that they BOTH can be whatever they choose.  But the way this country's been run for the last half decade makes me worry more and more about losing all the immense strides we've made in the last 50 in less than a 10th of that time.  God help us all if the republican regime power grab goes on any longer.

Jerry, when Clinton was in office I was doing a thousand time better in all areas, friends and family were too. You've been brainwashed boy!

Obama still has well over 350,000 donors this year, which at least 100,000 more than Hillary; that's a lot more impressive than beating someone by 7,000 donors in a single quarter.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:03 AM)


Please tell me again about how you aren't shilling for anyone.


Van

I love media matters----course they are not as famous as the american enterprise institute or the heritage foundation(RIGHT-WING THINK TANKS)But it will grow and is here to stay.Whoever started it has my admiration,but I do not think it was just one person.

I am not aq millionare and do not know anybody that has done well in the Bush years.Imagine that???????

Fstlouise;

Then I suggest it is because you couldn't man up in the 21st century....

I wonder if the secret service guys were thinking about Princess Diana and the crash in Paris as Bill was driving like a "mad person"?

C.godfrey: you should be more concerned about losing all that extra money when the democrats send the biggest tax increase in the history of this country.

No, F in St Louis,Jerry doesn't care about anyone besides himself.Just like his mentor George.

Van - It's not shilling, it's balancing unbalanced coverage.  When I see unfair coverage against Hillary, I stick up for her, too (see my recent posted reply on politico.com challenging Ben Smith for criticizing her unjustly on her interview response about Hispanics).

I know it's hard to imagine that not everyone has an agenda like you do, but there is a thing called intellectual honesty.  

C.godfrey: you should be more concerned about losing all that extra money when the democrats send the biggest tax increase in the history of this country.

jerry/corpus christi texas

I'd rather pay my marginal share now (as long as the wealthy pay their proportionate part) than have everyting I've ever worked for come crashing down on my kids' world as it surely will when the bill for all of the last years' insanity and insupportable excesses comes stomping down on them - wiping out every last vestige of social consciousness we were every able to raise, due to the complete inability to pay for our horrendeous and humongeous mistakes and failure to admit and attempt to rectify them in a timely and mature fashion.
I don't want a republican or democrat to win the next election, specifically.  But I sure wish a grown up would step up to the plate and leave the 'cowboys & indians' role playing to those under 4ft tall.

Jerry writes "C.godfrey: you should be more concerned about losing all that extra money when the democrats send the biggest tax increase in the history of this country"  What is it with people from Texas and their ability to deal with reality ... Bush has created the BIGGEST government in this nation's history  ... Jerry the damage has been DONE ..the people of this nation have had enough ...Iraq is costing the taxpayers of this nation 10 billion dollars a month ...with no end to it ... if the GOP wins in '08 they tax the hell out of us in order to contine paying for this war ...no more for GOP  ..its over ...why do you think your woman Hillary is raising so much money ... not even FOX news is covering the GOP candidates as much as they are the dems ... someone at FOX news is aware that it is over for the GOP in '08 ..  

Oh and by the way, Van, explain to me how 7,000 more donors in one quarter is more impressive than 100,000 more donors in three quarters; you apparantly think my ability to do simple arithmetic is an example of "shilling" for Obama.

Jerry, your responses are bordering on madness. Ah, who else do we know is becoming unraveled.... hmm, oh yea our president!!AND Tucker Calson of course. Man up Jerry? Is that what Larry Craig and his guys call it while in the stall. "Are you ready to man up?"

jerry/corpus christi texas :

By the way, whatever happened to:  "Iraqi oil will pay for the war" ?
(Let alone: "Cakewalk" and "It won't last 6 weeks, let alone 6 months")

hey, it's been a cake walk for bush... he only address select effete audiences gopee-ers

well, Susan in Miami; when you have a group like Media matters/founded by Hillary Clinton going after Rush with a story that just blew up in their (and her face)and opened up a pandora's box, you have to wonder if Hillary Clinton is just so criminally stupid she thinks she can get away with anything.  I think Hillary and the group she founded; Media matters needs to be investigated.  is this her version of turning into Nazi propagandists?

C Godfrey:

Why should I pay for someone else to be a bum?  we did that during the Clinton years and did nothing for them.  Considering the democrats are following my guy's playbook by growing the government bigger through earmarks, it is kind of funny to blame President Bush when Nutty Nancy and Dingy harry are doing the same thing.

hey, it's been a cake walk for bush... he only address select effete audiences gopee-ers

I know it's hard to imagine that not everyone has an agenda like you do, but there is a thing called intellectual honesty.  

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:33 AM)


Please explain how being open in my support is intellectually dishonest.

Van

"the poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. During Clinton's tenure, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004."

Health care convictions have increased 80 percent since 1992, ...[HHS Fact Sheet, 2/22/00]

There are 377,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 -- nearly a fifth -- giving us the smallest Federal workforce since 1960. [National Partnership for Reinventing Government, Accomplishments fact sheet; National Economic Council, 6/26/00]

Bottom line is we're paying a lot more for the poor now than ever, because republican government has created more of them than any administration since the depression.

Your support for Hillary was not what I was calling dishonest.  I was referring to the fact that you automatically assume intellectually dishonesty from everyone you debate, as if anyone criticizing Clinton is out to get her or must a shill for another candidate.  I was simply pointing out that there indeed such a phenomenon as intellectually honest people who can have disputes about particular points without having a totally biased agenda.  

Quite simply, there is an objective argument that the nomination coverage has been biased towards Clinton and against Edwards and Obama, just like media coverage was biased towards the Clintons in the early 90's, and in the age of blogging, individual citizens are going to take an issue with that slant regardless of who they do or do not support.  And they should.  As a Hillary supporter, you should welcome such honesty; it prevents your candidate's expectations from being overly inflated in a Democratic primary process that historically loves to chew up establishment frontrunners they think are being imposed on them.

Obama has actually raised almost 15 million dollars more than Hillary throughout this camaign. (since the number Hillary is touting includes- not only- the 10 million she gave herself, but also all the donations from Hsu's bundling).

Obama has more supporters.

As for the people (all on landlines) they keep polling,

Where are they, who are they, and what have they been smoking?

Why would you trust Hillary to handle healthcare- which she failed miserably at- or handling the Iraq war- which she authorized and supported vociferously right up until she started running for prez.

Two other things to remember, Hillary voted against the ammendment in 2002 that would have required more diplomacy from the prez.

And now it's all happening again with Iran.
Hillary just gave a vote of support for Cheney to get his wish to attack Iran.

"I was referring to the fact that you automatically assume intellectually dishonesty from everyone you debate, as if anyone criticizing Clinton is out to get her or must a shill for another candidate."

I don't think you should assume what I, "automatically assume", as I do not, and the, "shill", designation comes from one of your own posts.
I agree with the rest of your sentiments.

If you are that independent, impartial, scrupulously intellectually honest person you claim to be, you will admit that much of the posting here exhibits a heavy anti-Clinton bias, much of it based more on emotion than political analysis.
You will also admit that Clinton supporters are subject to many more personal attacks than the supporters of the other candidates, and that if the same things that are said about Clinton were said about Obama, that the authors of said posts would be branded as bigots, racists, or worse.

You will also, I hope, agree that your comparison of Clinton to Dean is not really apropos.


Van  

I am not impressed with Hillary's 100,000 new donors.  I am sure that a good percentage of them donated only because she offered her husband up on a couch with a big tv and a bag of chips.  I have talked to several people who do not support Hillary that gave a very small donation for the chance to spend a little time with Bill.  This is not an indicator of support for her.

The deluded nature of the anti-Hillary faction is exemplified by their desperately grasping at the "debate with Bill", promo as the sole reason for her fundraising successes and greater number of donors than the Obama campaign.


Van

Jerry writes  "Why should I pay for someone else to be a bum" You've been doing that since Bush got elected ..why change things .. I thought you were happy with the bums in the White House .. typical GOP loser .. lets live a double standard

Ricardo in CA;

Better check your house dude, in case it is sinking like they are in La Jolla.......

The state was watching this movement for weeks according to the state people.....

Typical liberals, always waiting till disaster strikes to beg for help from Uncle Sam.

Jerry from Corpus Christie- you keep claiming that Media Matters was "founded by Hillary Clinton". Would give us your source?

Jerry my home is doing great ...and worth a lot more than anything in Corpus Cristi thats for sure ...no worries hear ...California is doing great in all regards thanks to our "Closet Democrat".. Republican Governor ... who nows whats good for him ... he's the new "anti-Republican" ..smart man  :)

Jerry's comments are clearly being made for one reason and one reason only - he's lonely. He needs attention. So he spends all day with one hand on his computer and the other on his ...oh no, there goes lunch!

Pat in NY ... LOL ... you just made my day ..

Van - I thought you and I already made peace in the other thread, but I guess that's how multiple converstations in different threads at the same time can keep a debate going forever.

You are absolutely right, there is more animus against Clinton than Obama here on firstread, but that's because the Republicans here take constant shots at her, based on a decade plus of oppo research talking points that the base knows and believes in.  Most of the negative Obama comments come from a handful of Clinton supporters, and the Republicans occasionally even have nice things to say about him.  I think this reflects on what the general election would be like, and why either Edwards or Obama would be more successful that Clinton in a general election.  The percent of Americans that have bought into the noise machine's anti-Clinton mantra over the last fifteen years is in the 40's; however, only about 30% of people today are really locked into the current noise machine given the popularity of GWB, and would automatically buy new propaganda about a new Democratic nominee.  Quite simply, it makes sense to work with the good numbers that are emerging for Democrats nowadays as opposed to going back to the old political equation, when things were much tighter; Democrats would be sacrificing over ten percent of the population that still repeat the lies about the Clintons they learned in the 90's, but have turned against Bush and the Republicans enough to consider other Democrats.

The term shilling originated with a comment of yours in this thread or another one nearby: "Please tell me again how you're not shilling for any candidate" were your exact words.

And Clinton/Dean is not a perfect comparison, just like Obama could not be compared to anyone in a previous cycle quite exactly either; there are many things about this race that are unique.  But as a general strategic point, the candidate in 2004 who led the national polls and used their warchest to solidify that strength nationally fared differently than their top financial rival, who despite trailing by double digits in the polls, focused their resources on early states like Iowa.  One strategy Clinton is utilizing, the other Obama is utilizing; I'm not making any direct comparisons between 2004 and 2008 candidates beyond that one strategic observation.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):