Hillary Clinton's support among voters is a mile wide and not very deep, certanily her supporters cannot match the passion of Barack Obama's or John Edwards'.

She is the front runner primarily beacause of Bill Clinton. As the campaign progresses and voters actually look with a little more depth and insight at the candidates, Hillary Clinton will lose support.

Well written, and I agree with your assessment. We desperately need to have publicly-financed elections. The political process has become a nauseating circus. Personally, I don't care for any of the 'frontrunners'!

Yeah, but what does she owe them?

I'm not worried that she'll be "run by" them, but advisers are people that candidates turn to for, you know, advice. I'd rather not vote for someone getting advise from people like her advisers.

You don't know any of this to be true. Your article starts out snidely (the "shrill voice" and "southern drawl for black audiences" canard, etc.) and then conflates Hillary with Bill as though they are the same person.

In the first quarter of 2007, Obama raised just 1 million less than Clinton. The average donation to Clinton's campaign was $520. per donor, with over 50,000 donors. The Obama campaign raised almost as much moncey with the average donation being $250. with 100,000 donors. Given that Clinton is far better known, has been in politics longer and has campaigned longer than Obama, there is not that much difference in the amount of money raised.

Obama has received donations from employees of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse and Kirkland and Ellis (the tobacco representatives) and Obama has received donations from Viacom, Time Warner and Morgan Stanley. Exelon, the country's premier nuclear plant operator has donated over $160,000. to the Obama campaign in the first quarter alone. He has also received donations from employees of Baker, Botts ( the law firm that has ties to the Bush family), The Carlyle Group (another group with ties to the Bush family), Health South and Bank of America. If your point is that the candidate is defined by his supporters, that might call into question Obama's ties to his donors.

In fact, if you compare Obama and Clinton's records at opensecrets.org, they look very much alike, with most of the same people donating to both campaigns in the same amounts. That of course, makes me question your purpose in writing the article in the first place.

I am assuming MJ was playing at being obtuse. HRC is much more corporatist then Edwards or Obama. Is she better than any Repuglican. Sure. Is she better than most (any) of the rest of the Democratic field. Not so much.

I don't think you can blame HRC's cautious triangulation with its focus on small things on her being "scarred" by the health care fiasco of 1993; after all, the proposal that her commission produced was itself a cautious attempt to placate the insurance industry, rather than going after a single-payer plan. And she had shown her willingness to accommodate to the powers that be while employed as a business litigator at the Rose firm in Little Rock and serving on the board of Wal-Mart--where she never protested any of that entity's anti-union policies, as a recent LA Times article makes clear.

Does she have any convictions? If so, are they ones that her base actually shares?

The same is unfortunately true for her husband. The Arkansas labor movement learned over more than a decade of Bill as governor that he simply could not be trusted to do what he promised. While he may claim that his hands were tied by a Republican Congress, he campaigned enthusiastically for conservative agenda items, such as NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, etc. Why would Hillary Clinton be any better?

Which is not to say that Obama is necessarily better. But the fact that he may be drawing from the same well does not make me feel one bit better about HRC.

The analogy of a GOP candidate hiring handlers from Greenpeace and the AFL/CIO really sealed it for me.

Or how about "engagement" with China? How's that working out now? China is vacuuming up our industrial economy and paying workers starvation wages. The worst of both worlds.

I personally felt a distinct bitterness over all the political capital that was expended over Monicagate. Yes, it was a crock and GOP b.s. - but had he just let Gore take over, we might have had some Demo oxygen left for other priorites.

In the first quarter of 2007, Obama raised just 1 million less than Clinton. The average donation to Clinton's campaign was $520. per donor, with over 50,000 donors. The Obama campaign raised almost as much moncey with the average donation being $250. with 100,000 donors. Given that Clinton is far better known, has been in politics longer and has campaigned longer than Obama, there is not that much difference in the amount of money raised.

Interesting, yet above, Ari says it's a difference of ~$2,000 vs. $300. Which of these figures is correct? Or is it a difference of calculating means and medians? Does anyone know?

Ari makes very good points!

I'll add something else. For me to vote for Hillary she would not have to be twice as good as her rivals. She would have to be 10 times as good!

And that's because 2 terms of Hillary would mean that the US would have had the Bush-Clinton dynasty for over a quarter-century!
And if you add the VP years, that's over one third of a century.

It's royalty in the guise of democracy.

For all her talents, HRC would be an obscure lawyer were she not former first lady.

Where else do we see that sort of thing? Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines... Certainly not in Europe. Which seems to have more political upward mobility than we do.

Do people realize what a laughing stock the US would be in the eyes of the world if this ridiculous dynasty thing is not brought to an end?

Don't people realize what it says about the state of our democracy?

I grew up thinking everyone could be president: they forgot to tell me "everyone from the royal court, that is."

And don't get me started on the dynastic disease of this nation that gets such a nimcompoop as W in the White House! At least HRC is smart. But frankly any democracy that gets Dubya as its chief has to ask itself the big question about the process.

I have very little doubt of his purpose in writing the article. It is crystal clear, bereft of reasonable interpretation, and filled with distortions, half truths and disinformation.

I see his membership to this blog is 5 hours old. Five hours too long as I see it.

There is a lot to say about Clinton's politics and her viability as a candidate, both of which I distrust. There's also a lot to say about the strong reaction against her to the point of religion from all sides or Ari Berman's revival of NAFTA as the defining issue, which I still feel truly skewed the definition of liberal and conservatism in 2000 such that Gore became identical to Bush and issues of class, equity, taxation, racial equality, the environment, imperialism, etc., all went out the window.

But I'd like to pick out just one thing, the association of donations with corruption. It's talking about a real danger, which is why we should demand campaign reform. However, let's leave aside Clinton and others entirely and stick to the topic itself. Something's just horribly off for me. It's too much like Gore's mansion or Edwards's haircut.

As long as we need money to win, let's play hardball. The issue for now shouldn't be whether you can raise money, but what you do in exchange and what you demand be done for you in exchange.

Both those are at the heart of the GOP. Your whole policy is crony capitalism combined with getting your people in control of future election funds. They're the two halves of the K Street project. Again and again, the mass media talking point has been that they're all corrupt, there's no difference, vote for whomever looks cute to you. It's not true. Berman's line, it seems to me, takes us back there. And my dislike of Clinton is not an excuse to go there. Nor should yours be.

Look, I realize this comment won't please Clinton fans like Bev or Clinton haters like most of you. But tough. Gore's or Edwards's or anyone else's viability is at stake, too. You're feeding the GOP spin, and it's factually and morally wrong.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

If hillary is to find herself saddled with the failures of the clinton administration, it is, of course, only fair that she be saddled with the successes as well.

the job creation. the brokering of peace in northern ireland. the decline in the poverty rate. the decline in the abortion rate. the balanced budgets. pell grants. eastern europe.

if you can't point to any policy positions, and all you people have is mark penn, the 20 year old wal-mart thing, and a 2,000 dollar donation from a republican, i hope, in the end, you're not too dismayed or surprised to find that such bleetings are only resonating in the blogosphere.

wait. there's the tan money too. what about that tan money?

for her senate re-election 93% of her donations came from people donating $100 or less.

for every mark penn there's a dolores huerta and a Fabian Nunez (if you didn't know, they're labor leaders) endorsement.

Now we have this full court press against Mark Penn, and I wonder why and who is behind it.

Don't forget the rest of that team...

Perhaps some foolish and small minded liberals who care about a real representative democracy and equality of opportunity are behind it

...Or perhaps it's the RNC elitists behind it I'm sure they like to attack their own funders and supporters?

Some of us remember the 90s as pretty good decade ...

Only in comparison to what came before and after. So Clinton wasn't selling us out nearly as fast as Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II? Yee-ha.

I wouldn't want an adviser who agreed with me on everything. But I wouldn't want them to disagree so much that I'd wonder if they were trying to undercut me, either. If Hillary trusts these people to give her advice, that's worth remarking on ...

I do agree it's worth remarking on and noting and documenting as things go forward. We're on the same page.

I just don't think, at this point, that it's definitive.

I'm still considering my primary vote. Hillary is still in my running, for whatever that's worth.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hillary was more famous than Bill when she went to Arkansas. I think the far more likely case is that, had she not married Bill, he would have appointed her to the Supreme Court instead of Ginzberg.

She has a stellar career that took off before she went to Arkansas and there is no reason to think that she would have climbed major mountains in her own right had she and Bill not hooked up.

I worked for several progressive organizations in the eighties that focused on child/family issues, and I knew far more about Hillary than I did Bill.

I think the boys are mad that mom is running for president. I can't figure out, for the life of me, why someone like Ari would engage in such blatantly deceptive, dishonest behavior. Bizarre.

Yes, there is misogyny on the left.

And speaking of advisors, who are the jerks that told Obama he should run and risk putting the 08 campaign in the hands of someone who has never run a contested campaign for a coveted federal office before?

THOSE are the advisors I don't want near the White House.

I keep thinking about Al Sharpton and how he had Republicans running and funding his campaign. I wonder if those same people are running and funding Obama's campaign and what promises he has made to them. Here's a guy who was like head of his local PTA or some such thing before he ran for the Senate and now we're supposed to trust him with the WH bid? We know he's got a stinky land deal in his background. What else is there? How does a guy with his, uh, paltry resume decide he's fit to run for president and that the Dems should trust him with their nod in what is probably the most important election in our history? Now, he's got this "decentralized" campaign and doesn't bother to distance himself from the genuinely scandalous behavior of his supporters and doesn't have the minimum of integrety to point out that the 1984 commercial was completely inappropriate. So with this decentralization in place, his supporters can say and do what they want about other democratic candidates, and Obama isn't responsible. Creepy. Thug-like. I'm bettting Obama winds up quite a bit to the right of Ms. Clinton and I won't be surprised if he jumps party. I think he's very vulnerable to the siren call of narcissism.

How does a guy with his, uh, paltry resume decide he's fit to run for president...

Does anyone really care about his resume? I don't.

One of the things I'm looking for in a candidate is the least amount of Washington-itis as possible.

Further, whatever you say about Obama, he's obviously a smart guy. Probably the brightest mind of the bunch running. That, too, works for me.

And, by the way, the 1984 ad was the best thing we've seen this campaign so far. It was brilliant, and a great example of the potential of people taking media into their own hands and expressing their politics. We will only see more of that kind of thing. 

So, what you call "creepy" and "thug-like," I call the future of politics. Genie's out...no stopping it. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I don't get the resume issue, either. Ever since we've had presidential elections, this comes up. What qualifies somebody? Military general? Not the same job. State governor? Not the same job. Senator? Not the same job? Business leader? Nope.

Until we let our presidents try out running Canada to get experience, I think we need to admit that the resume does not tell the story.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Agreed. Mack is not a "staunch" republican. I'm not disputing he's republican, but "staunch?" Mack personally gives to many candidates in both parties. The Morgan Stanley PAC, likewise, gives to both parties. As a PAC, it's sole purpose is to impact regulation and legislation of the financial services industry--that's what PACs do.

You know, not for nothing, but Governor Corzine ran Goldman for years, which is Morgan Stanley's true peer. During those year he gave to both parties, and no doubt Goldman's PAC did the same as Morgan Stanley.

Seems odd to slam HRC, and John Mack, for the playing field they're in. Aren't the other candidates, as well as the rest of us, in the same field?

Corvid

Public financing is just one small step. What we need is a lifetime ban on ex-pols and Capitol Hill staffers and former regulators taking ANY KIND of job with ANY business that they had any part in regulating or legislating for when they were in office. This is where the real rewards kick in--not with campaign contributions (relatively minor) but with 6- or even 7-figure (often do-nothing) "jobs" when officials leave office.

FWIW, excerpted from BartCop post,

The Nation, once a respected resource of liberal opinion and journalism, has seemingly declared war on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Their recent pieces on the Senator from New York contain at least two factual inaccuracies, casting doubt on the veracity of the entire series of articles and the motives of the author.When discussing the 2005 bankruptcy bill, for example, Ari Berman tries to build a case for Sen. Clinton being in favor of that legislation because she voted for a similar bill in 2001 that did not pass and because she missed the vote on the 2005 version. What the author either neglects to mention (or just did not know) was Clinton not only opposed the 2005 bill as indicated in a speech the day before, she was also one of only 29 Senators to vote against cloture on it. Few faulted Clinton for missing the vote - she was by her husband’s side during his open heart surgery.

No, there is no parallel to the presidency. However, there is experience and track record that should be examined. Governors, for example, represent a similar governing executive experience. Generals marshal large beaurocracies, not unlike many departments within the federal government. And senators understand the workings of the legislature, which is a key avenue, outside of executive orders, to effecting change.

I suspect Canada is not such big operation. California is actually the sixth largest economy in the world (according to California). No, I am not suggesting Arnie. It's just an example.

I remember a couple years back when an advisor to a Philly politician had a friend put together an attack website that targeted a competitor. The attack site was sneaky. It looked like a real site in favor of it's intended target and started collecting some traffic from unsuspecting citizens. Then over a period of time it started to introduce disturbing factoids and spin. What made the whole enterprise blow up was when some of these factoids were race-based. An investigation linked the webmaster back to the advisor. No money changed hand. The motive was political and a desire to win at all costs.
To the politician's credit, he took some responsibility, apologized and fired the advisor.

So whether it's an individual recut of an iconic commercial, or a covert website, I question whether we want this to be the future.

Incidently, the advisor ended up going to Washington and working as a spokesman the House Appropriations Committee. No irony here.

it turns out that the guy who created the 1984 ad, while not paid directly by the obama campaign, worked for a company that had been hired by the obama campaign.

The motive was political and a desire to win at all costs.

is a perfect way to put it.

No, I don't see people expressing their politics through an online medium as a bad thing. At all.  

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I agree, it's great that we have a woman and an african american candidate running. And a Hispanic candidate. And some qualified white guys, too.

And they're all going to be under a lot of scrutiny, as it should be.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

"I keep thinking about Al Sharpton and how he had Republicans running and funding his campaign. I wonder if those same people are running and funding Obama's campaign and what promises he has made to them."

Racist much?

The poster wasn't making an assertion, it was an opinion based on a hypothetical. It isn't any more egregious than NO's hypothetical.

This is really starting to aggravate me, John. I'm not a "Clinton fan", I'm a democrat who has volunteered for the Edwards campaign. What I dislike is the democrats' propensity for destroying their candidates in the primaries.