Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dems Unveil Fundraising Totals

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) announcement yesterday afternoon that she had raised $26 million in the first three months of 2007 set off a flurry of money announcements from other Democrats pursuing the presidential nomination.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) who shocked the political world by raising $7.4 million in the first three months of 2003 for his 2004 presidential bid, roughly doubled that total this time around -- collecting somewhere slightly north of $14 million. Unlike Clinton, whose campaign said it was unable to provide a breakout of money raised for the primary and the general election, Edwards' team said $13 million was primary money while $1 million could be spent only if Edwards becomes the Democratic nominee.

"Our financial community had expanded significantly beyond our base of support in 2004," said Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. He refused to comment on Clinton's fundraising; "That's not how we roll at the Edwards campaign," he said.

Three other Democrats released fundraising numbers on Sunday evening. Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) fared best with roughly $6 million raised -- a sum high enough to maintain his status as the candidate most likely to benefit from a slip by one of the frontrunners. Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) raised $4 million and Sen. Joe Biden $3 million.

The biggest shoe waiting to drop is still Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Rumors are pegging Obama at more than $20 million -- a staggering sum if true.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 2, 2007; 1:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Raises $26 Million in First Quarter
Next: Mitt Wows


US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 3, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Clinton and Romney have early edges. For Clinton, raising $26 million and adding $10 more million from her senate campaign rules the day with a whopping $34 million. The big question is: how much of it is actually primary money?

Romney raising $23 million is astounding. It proves he's definately a legitimate candidate. He won the DC straw poll and had the highest total fundraising amt. for the Republicans. Not to mention the national organization he's put together. Not to mention Bob Perry from Texas is backing Romney. He's the swift boat man with a history of being willing to fund dirty independent organizations against a candidate. Right now, Romney is in great shape. McCain will still be right with him, though. He has a great national organization, name recognition (which Guiliani has) and a national hero's resume.

Front runners: Clinton vs. Romney

Posted by: reason | April 3, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

peter dc is absolutely right. The money is important, and it has its own context, but momentum rules the day. You need some cash to mount a challenge, but winning Iowa, New Hampshire (and now Nevada as well) is of supreme importance. The fundraising is a showpiece for the media at this stage. If HRC continues to hold her strong lead in IA and NH, she'll roll. Someone needs to steal one of those states in January to have a chance.

Posted by: JamesCH | April 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that should have been Rasul, not Hamdi (Rasul was the case that forced the Administration to start granting status hearings under Article 5 of the Third Convention).

Posted by: DTM | April 3, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey its not the money that will win Iowa and New Hampshire- It is the local support and Hillary Clinton is getting that. With Vilsack in Iowa and many democratic activists and Sheheen and a whole raft of democratic activists in NH including the ED of the Democratic State Committee- and then yesterday's announcement of the entire current political hierachy in NJ and the the recent polls showing her about 20 pecentage points ahead in Florida- that is what should be scaring other candidates- not the fact that she or Obama raised alot of money.

Posted by: peter dc | April 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Some clarification on the Geneva Conventions:

Everyone claiming POW status under the Third Convention is entitled to a status hearing, and they are entitled to be treated as a POW until they have gotten a status hearing. See Article 5 here:

This is a crucial point, because prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi, the Administration decided that it could skip this step and simply declare people unlawful combatants without a status hearing.

Posted by: DTM | April 3, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The back and forth between Tarheel and Blarg only made this mudier for me.

First, Tarheel provided a cite which pertains to "civilians" during war.

The following URL would seem to be more applicable (Tarheels is at a similar U.N. site and is very similar in appearance.)

See the, Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War at

Article 5 gets into what has been confusing for me:

"Article 5 The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 (Article 4 describes who is considered to be a POW- N.E.) from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

According to this, the detainees who are the subject of this discussion "shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

So, they are considered POW's. And the "trials" which are the subject of debate are not trials as we normally understand them, but are "tribunals" to determine their status.

So it becomes, are the tribunals controlled by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or by the United States Code?

Not having paid attention to the issue as it worked it's way up to the Supreme Court, I don't know what the current legal status is. I do recall seeing something to the effect that although the Court ruled against the Administration, the controlling authority was still in the military, which would mean the Uniform Code controls. And everything we normally look to the U. S. Code for with respect to "due process," etc. doesn't apply.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Oh Blarg, you might as well stop trying to presents facts and reason to the tarheels and zouks and what have yous. They don't want to hear it. They only want to hear fox news reinforce their warped, simplistic, good guy/bad guy narrative, because they are simple minded, just like bush. Any rational, adult narrative makes them them put their fingers in their ears and go nyah, nyah. They are but children-- malignant children, it's true, evil children. Too bad they'll never actually fight for this country -- or support it in any way. They even fight paying the taxes it takes to keep it running.

They don't care about the country, just the big multinational corporations that run it and that they presumably invest in. It's all about money with them, and nothing but. They really are nothing but treasonous little weasels in the end -- big-talking, foul-mouthed weasels who are motivated only by irrationaility and selfishness.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Merv has summed it up... Second on the Dodd comment, good for you Dodd! Glad to see your showing.

Posted by: Golgi | April 3, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's fund raising, if they were a stock on Wall Street would create a small drift downward. She did what was expected and nothing more from the low hanging fruit. She brought in Bill to even make it to that amount. Her online raise was hardly strong. I would be in worry mode with that amount, with that momentum going in and from the people who are raising the $s. Mantz, McAuliffe and Jacobson are part of the A team. I am sure they would have and coulve have done better with a great horse. They are not blowing out the field as they thought, which is good for the party.

Speaking of "Party."
As quick note on my old friend Terry McAuliffe. I've known him for almost 20 years and worked with him often. In his recent book he only briefly mentions Sen. Tom Harkin. Your readers should know that Terry was the finance chair of the 1992 Harkin Presidential campaign and he only weaseled into the Clinton campaign when Tom dropped out of the race and even then he was really just getting coffee for the real cash folk...Or buying steaks at the Palm...It took him a bit of time to get in the inner circle of the fund raising group and he really never did until the PIC in 1993 and then he went over to the DNC to run a second tier fund raising group..It took him until mid 1994 to gain the stature at the White House he seems to talk about..As a note as well we all shared office space and desks over there on F street during the 92 race and he now he acts like he invented the Bill and Hillary show. That book Terry, is the most BS I have seen, and only by the luck of the court, Ron Carey's memory and Laura Hartigan's loyality Terry is not joining others making rocks smaller. Terry, you are not telling the truth in that book both from a personal and professional point of view. Fess up! Also..we all no why Geffen went to Obama..right Terry..wink..wink

Now back to the show.

Romney's raise as Obama's (as predicted by the people in the know) are very impressive by any accounts. They are starting from scratch nationally and Obama should start building on that list for Q2. Keep it going.. I also beleive Edwards did very well and should be happy about where he is.. But like..Bill Richardson also did quite well, which was very solid and shows he may get into the high second tier by the summer...Chris Dodd..not so bad for a great guy and are looking old and it is not going to happen

As for you Chris...stop drinking the kool-aid from the Clinton campaign and act like a top political writer for the Washington Post.

Posted by: Merv Tide | April 3, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if you're actually incapable of understanding the thread of discussion, or you're intentionally misrepresenting my position. I'm stating facts about the way US and international law works.

It is a fact that the US Constitution doesn't only grant rights to US citizens. It is a fact that POWs have the right to a speedy and fair trial under the Geneva Conventions. Whether you and Zouk like it or not, those are the facts.

The question is how those facts apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo. If you were smart, you'd argue why the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional protections don't apply to those prisoners. And there are some valid arguments to be made on those points. But instead, you've chosen to argue points that can be easily proven false by such simple acts as QUOTING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. And you've supplemented it with stupid name-calling. That just shows that you're completely incapable of making any kind of logical argument on this topic.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Blaraqie. This is one of your quotes.

This is Wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Certain rights in the Constitution, such as voting rights, only apply to US citizens. But the Constitution in general describes how the government is supposed to act towards everyone in the US, not just citizens.

You've in your own words been trying to confer even our Constitution's rights on the Guatanamo detainees. Those are your words, not mine. As the Geneva Convention states, the detainees have no right to a trial. But the Detaining Power can conduct a trial. Then some rights apply to the detainee. But the detainee cannot initiate a trial.

Well, I'm done with this discussion. You can continue arguing for your friends at Guatanamo. They won't be coming to dinner at my house, that's for sure. Maybe you can have them over and direct them to a tour of the nearest nuclear power plant.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

tarheel--"Sorry but nothing was printed from the Geneva Convention granting enemy combatants a right to a trial that they initiate."

Correct. But it does give instructions for how soon trials by the U.S. must be held--and THAT can be disputed if the U.S. does not comply. They may also petition for noncompliant treatment.

Of course, prisoners of war should also be released when the war is over.

But if there is no war, there can be no prisoners of war and detainees should be subject to normal international criminal laws.

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel, I'm arguing what the rights of POWs are. You said that POWs don't have the right to a trial, and I've clearly proven that they do. That means that you're wrong, and I'm right. Now, if you want to argue that the prisoners we captured during the Global War on Terror aren't POWs, you can do that. But you can't say that POWs don't have the right to a trial, because by international treaties they do.

And yes, I am surprised when I'm labeled a terrorist sympathizer for quoting international law. Apparently you don't know how to disagree with someone without calling them an evil traitor. Pathetic, if not unexpected.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"at the same time, pelosi offers to surrender to syria."

She did not offer to surrender to Syria. Please show proof otherwise.

The cons always run away when confronted with facts. I demand an answer!

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but nothing was printed from the Geneva Convention granting enemy combatants a right to a trial that they initiate. What is being twisted on this blog is the difference between us trying detainess and detainees basically suing the United States and trying to get us in court. The Geneva Convention content applicable to trials is referring to the Detaining Power (U.S.) initiating trials for crimes against humanity and similar crimes. Once the U.S. initiates a trial then certain rights kick in. But the detainees getting lawyers and trying to initiate their own court proceedings is not covered by the Geneva Convention. Here is a web site with a copy of the Convention. Something no one else has bothered to post.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

tarheel--"Blarg, please print those sections of the Geneva Convention that give captured Al Queda and Iraqie soldiers a right to a trial."

That was already posted. If Iraq was in war with the U.S. (however short), then Iraqi soldiers are under the Conventions.

If the al-qaeda operatives are considered soldiers, then the Conventions apply. If they are not, then normal international criminal law applies.

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

FYI: We all use "War" as a word to describe what we are doing in Iraq, and it is wrong. Congress declares war and they have not done so, as per Iraq.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

This is from Amazon. No time to use my own words. Got to run and pick up my daughter at the high school.

Saddam's Bombmaker. Khidhir Hamza, the Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb, tells how he secretly
developed the bomb with the cynical help of U.S., French, German, and British suppliers and experts and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War.

Dr. Hamza also presents a startling, unprecedented portrait of Saddam himself, his drunken rages, his women, his fear of germs, and his cold-blooded murder of underlings. Saddam's Bombmaker is also a saga of one man's journey through the circles of hell. Educated at MIT and Florida State University, dedicated to a life of peaceful teaching in America, Dr. Hamza relates how the regime ordered him home, seduced him into a pampered life as an atomic energy official, and forced him to design a bomb.

The price of refusal was torture. The tale of his escape, his first bungled contact with CIA agents, and his flight abroad will keep listeners riveted toward a climax worthy of a well-crafted spy thriller.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

It says that a POW shouldn't be confined when waiting for trial unless they committed another offense, or it's required for national security. But if they are confined, then the confinement shouldn't exceed 3 months. And the confinement is "while awaiting trial"; even confined POWs get a trial.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, please print those sections of the Geneva Convention that give captured Al Queda and Iraqie soldiers a right to a trial. The Geneva Convention does not say prisoners of war get trials. Why do you keep quoting it when you have no idea what it says? I wished you would support America's battle for security with the same passion you're showing for the nonexistent rights of the terrorists and Iraqie soldiers. You keep arguing for trials for captured terrorists and soldiers and yet don't undertand why you're labeled a sympathizer with them? What world do you live in?

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - Notice the phrase "if he were accused of a similar offence"

I think this is where the POW is charged with committing a crime beyond simply being a soldier.

Otherwise every POW in every war is tried.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Article 103

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months."

I'll admit that I'm not an expert on the Geneva Conventions. But that section seems to say that POWs are entitled to trials, which should be held as soon as possible. Particularly within 3 months. The rights granted to the Guantanamo prisoners are clearly far less than those guaranteed by that article of the Geneva Conventions, as many of them have been held for years.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Did you read Saddam's Bombmaker where his number one nuclear scientist said Hussien's goal was to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States? - Tarheel

Didn't know that. What's your source?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - Am I correct that the Geneva Convention does not call for giving POWs trials? That POWs are simply detained until the end of hostilities.

What has us in a quandry is how do you treat the soldier masquarading as a civilian?

Why accord these soldiers rights beyond those that POWs have had since the Geneva Convention went into effect?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

tarhill: Frame your arguement in a way that takes into consideration how the folks feel about our troops in Iraq killing their people, and do not use the collateral damage excuse. Lets try and be fair to all the folks that had/has nothing to do with this War.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see. I was rude to you another time, so it's fair for you to say that I hate America and side with the terrorists. That makes sense. Even though I apologized for being rude and explained what I meant, I guess that still allows you to say whatever horrible things you want about me for as long as I live. Accusing someone of lying is exactly the same as accusing them of treason anyway.

It's also nice that you think POWs and foreign soldiers don't deserve trials. The entire international community believes they do deserve trials. That's part of the Geneva Convention. But that's just another thing for you to ignore in your endless pursuit of being yet another right-wing talking head.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"exxon donated a billion dollars to education foundations"

And the CEO took credit.

BTW- following your tax cut rationalization, that's my money which should have been returned to me as dividends. It was given away to make corporate execs look good.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Notice how all the Dems scurry for cover when forcibly confronted by reason? It is a different story when it is 100 to one on a typical day and they can all gang up on one poor individual and heap scorn and insults on him. confront them and they run off. now you see how their military policy came about - same thing. confront them and they wish to quit. nothing is worth fighting for to them except the demise of the GOP. And the spineless-of-late GOP won't fight back. If the press were honest it might be different.
Let's hear once more about the "culture of corruption" from Sen Feinstein. Let's hear about war profiteering. you won't.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

But they support the troops. Ignore the kissing up to syria by the new speaker and the threat to cut off funds by the leader of the senate.

still don't quite get the Dem reasoning. Maybe a knock on the head would help.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, how old are you, because you'll be waiting a long, long time. Why would I apologize to someone who slandered me by saying I intentionally lied in posts I made concerning my support for the minimum wage. You never apologized for it. And why would I apologize for posting a news article from New Mexico? Maybe you've read it before but not everyone lives on this blog like you. I post them several times so some of the people who have lives and visit only once in a while get to see them. This blog's not all about you.

I believe that a foreign soldier or combatant or guy with a gun shooting our American soldiers does not deserve a trial. What again would be the purpose of the trial? To prove he was justified in shooting an American soldier? So it's easy to deduce that someone who wants an enemy soldier to have their day in court must support that soldier and his philosophy. You can say you don't but essentially becoming their Johnny Cochran in this blog does show your support for them. Like I said, it's foreigners or their supporters killing U.S. citizens and soldiers we are talking about, not an accusation of shoplifting.

Did you read Saddam's Bombmaker where his number one nuclear scientist said Hussien's goal was to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States? Were we supposed to wait until he exploded one before attacking him?

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

How would I know what is true about that? why does it matter now? I used that point to show the bias and animus of the media in general.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

So you're admitting that Dan Rather's allegations of Bush's National Guard misconduct were true?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

LSM - lame stream media or left stream media - in particular not Fox. go to the LSM for editorials, go to fox for truth. Prime example - dan rather of the fake but true school.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is ripping Obama and Hillary is laughing all the way to the ballot box:

Posted by: William | April 2, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

LSM? Sorry, I'm acronym-challenged

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"I change the channel any time I see a commercial and I don't read the propaganda that comes in the mail."

Like all Dems, I already know everything.

Posted by: columbia | April 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

that would silence her completely. she knows even less about econ. but at least she's passionate and dependable, if insulting and hysterical. there are others who just post trash - esp. noname_nobrain

did you know that exxon donated a billion dollars to education foundations? you won't hear it in the LSM. contrary to worldview.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Columbia, interesting point on the wasted money on campaigns. Still, let's put this into perspective. I'm paraphrasing Will here, but it's accurate:

All of the campaigns, on both sides plus the whackjob parties, may raise and spend almost a billion dollars during the 2 years leading up to 08. Sounds like alot? Compare that to what Americans alone spend on Easter candy *every year*, which is $2b.

In an 'expensive' country like America, $1b is peanuts when deciding the leader of the free world.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey drindl, I guess you don't know very much about federal contracting. Fortunately, I do.

DOD gave KBR a study while he was SecDef. That's chump change from a contracting perspective, but whatever. Then when he leaves that position, he waits the required 2 years (it used to be one year btw), then he's hired by the company's parent, since he knows the business and knows the customers.

Outsourcing is regularly done by all branches of government - it's simply more efficient to have private industry do many tasks instead of gov employees.

Add to that the fact that he's giving all of that 8 mil to charity.

Please tell me you're not calling *that* the alleged 'war profiteering'? You are exposing your ignorance. I recommend you stick to subjects you know something about.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile dirty harry reid moves to cut off funds for the army. at the same time, pelosi offers to surrender to syria. no wonder everyone knows the Dems are weak on defense. It only took three months to lose this war.

It's not over yet.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Think of all the homes one could build in the gulf region. Think of all the mouths we could feed in our OWN country. Think of all the diseases we could help cure (including cancer). What a BIG waste of money campaigns are!!! I change the channel any time I see a commercial and I don't read the propaganda that comes in the mail. And this goes for my own party, too.

Posted by: Columbia, MD | April 2, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel, I'm still waiting for your evidence that I hate America and side with the 9/11 attackers. Or, failing that, your apology for hauling out that inane talking point yet again and slandering me.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Jury indicts Aragon in alleged kickback scam, by Steve Terrell, The New Mexican, March 30, 2007. Http://

The U.S. Attorney's Office has announced that a former Democratic Senate leader and three others face charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and money laundering in a courthouse corruption probe. Manny Aragon for decades was one of the most powerful figures in New Mexico state government. Today the Albuquerque Democrat stands accused, along with three others, in an alleged scheme to cheat the state out of more than $4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court House.

The U.S. attorney also unsealed plea agreements, secured earlier this year, from three others: lobbyist and former Albuquerque Democratic Mayor Ken Schultz, architect Marc Schiff and subcontractor Manuel Guara. Each pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud.

Thanks goodness I managed to get that wool pulled off of my eyes just in time to read this.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

Giuliani prepares US presidential bid--a new phase in 9/11 mythmaking

By Bill Van Auken
18 November 2006

With this week's announcement that Rudolph Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee--the first step in making a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination--the mythmaking surrounding New York City's former Republican mayor is entering a new phase.

New York's tabloids gave the founding of the "Rudolph Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee Inc." banner headline treatment, while a number of political analysts treated the move as a groundbreaking event in the long slog to the 2008 election.

In the wake of the Republican debacle at the polls in this year's midterm contests, Giuliani is being sold to the public as the party's potential savior.

He is being promoted as a "moderate" Republican alternative to the politics of Bush and Co., ideally positioned to appeal to the "centrist" and "independent" voters whose crossover is credited by media pundits for this year's Democratic sweep. Some have opined that the defeat dealt to Bush--as well as to a virtually every candidate for whom Giuliani personally campaigned in the run-up to November 7--has somehow strengthened the political position of New York's ex-mayor.

Like most of what passes for political analysis in the American media, the attempt to cast Giuliani as a "moderate" alternative is both shallow and grossly misleading.

It is based almost exclusively on statements he made while running for mayor of New York in support of abortion and gay rights, the two key "social issues" that Republicans have flogged in order to mobilize their base within the Christian right.

Any close examination of his record demonstrates, however, that on fundamental questions of militarism, democratic rights and social equality, Giuliani is among the most right-wing political figures in America today.

As mayor, Giuliani was despised for his provocative defense of flagrant police killings of innocent victims such as Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond, the byproduct of relentless "quality of life" and "zero tolerance" law enforcement that rode roughshod over the democratic rights of the city's working class and minority residents. In the Dorismond case, he brought public life in the city to an all-time nadir by illegally unsealing and publicizing the victim's juvenile record of a nonviolent offense to "prove" that the 26-year-old got what he deserved when an undercover cop shot him dead on a Manhattan street corner.

Presiding over City Hall during the most explosive Wall Street boom in US history, Giuliani pursued policies that served to transfer wealth from the poorest sections of New York's population to the richest, forcing nearly a quarter of a million people--in their overwhelming majority women and children--off welfare and into even deeper poverty.

For the rest of this article please go to:

Posted by: che | April 2, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

you can't see anything zouk, because you have the wool pulled over your own eyes..willfullly ignorant.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

PS, Bloomberg News has this on Republican candidates:

"April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney raised $23 million for his presidential campaign in the first three months of this year, almost doubling the total of top Republican contender John McCain.
McCain, an Arizona senator, brought in about $12.5 million in the first quarter, his campaign said. ``We had hoped to do
better,'' said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he raised $15 million, including
more than $10 million in March alone."

Posted by: Charity | April 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

We got a call from Senator Obama's fundraising people yesterday, but my husband said we should wait. He doesn't much like the idea of giving money to Democrats to fight other Democrats.

I did give a little $ to the DCCC on Saturday. It seems like they already have a plan in place to help the Dem seats most in need. As long as Rahm Emanuel quits telling folks to go on COLBERT REPORT, I'm happy!

Posted by: Charity | April 2, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

How much money is it apt to take to run a viable campaign for a Presidential nomination in 2008?
For the Democrats, what do Senators Dodd and Biden have to do to maintain their candidacies for the next 10 months or are they already "toast"?
As for the Republicans, who can be considered a "serious" candidate at this point? Guiliani, McCain, and Romney clearly are, and Hunter and Paul are almost certainly not. But what about Huckabee, Brownback, Tommie Thompson, or Tancredo? What do they have to do to be considered serious contenders? Finally, are Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich going to run for President, or are they going to back off for one reason or another? And if they run, do they have the resources to make a difference in the Presidential race?

Posted by: Mouse | April 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

criticized by auditors

numerous allegations

marked up meal prices

built the American prison

this is the extent of drindl's accusations against the vice-president, allegations and criticisms. Have you ever heard of a company that actually marks up products to make a profit? how unconscianable. cut and paste with no source - what are you hiding this time drindl?

Meanwhile - actual chicanery:

Government watchdog groups want more answers as to why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stepped down from a military appropriations subcommittee at a time questions were being asked billions of dollars in federal defense contracts going to her husband's companies. Feinstein resigned her post as chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations last week.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

'Nearly 70% of voters in the recent U.S. national elections believe the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay should either be granted a hearing before an independent judge or be released to their home countries, and fewer than 20% of those polled believe that the detainees should be held indefinitely.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

KOZ is clearly a Dem who effects being a thuglican in order to keep everyone in the reality-based world riled up.

It worked wonder last cycle, eh KOZ? ;-p

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: "those nasty clintons will simply stomp the life out of anyone who gets in their way, just examine their history."

so why wouldn't they do the same the the Republican nominee? The last two Republican nominees who ran against a Clinton for president got the life stomped out of them.

You seem to be arguing against yourself, einstein.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 2, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

What a shame that a candidate's legitimacy is now judged by how much money he or she can raise, not by their experience, or position on the issues, or ability to inspire the country, or...

Until we have mandatory public funding of campaigns so that the voters, and not the contributors, once again become the most important to the candidates, we will get the government of, for and by those who can bundle.

Posted by: rkolker | April 2, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

'I have no earthly idea what you're talking about wrt Cheney's 'war profiteering' - cite a source please. (note to rest of blog: she will cite nothing, just my prediction).'

Oh, sorry it was only $8 million he's made off the war in Iraq. At least from halliburton.

'As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study 'recommended' that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world.

Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney's privatization efforts for our military's logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, "The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It's very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that."

Bush's statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney's leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton's tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

During Cheney's tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank's manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.

With Iran's president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney's company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.

Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a "financial interest" whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

Posted by: driindl | April 2, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

why is it that this guy zouk does nothing but spew hatred of democrats all the time?

Posted by: zelda | April 2, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

' this is the Dem MO, don't fight the battle, try to win by chicanery. all spin, no facts needed. anything bad happens, tell about it on friday night after ten.'

it's tragic to see someone stewing in so much hatred all the time. his hatred has driven him more insane than he already was.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

gogli - don't be so cynical. the numbers only came in on Saturday. the checks are still being processed. all that information will be available at the FEC on april 15th I think. It is simply too early to analyze the numbers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that hill's numbers are mostly maxed out bigshots. that is the nature of the Dem party these days. Please don't attack this statement, we have been over and over this with actual FEC numbers. If you want to challenge it, cite your source, otherwise make things up as always.
the next quarter will be more difficult since most of the easy money will be gone. you can only donate the max once during the entire election cycle. there are two possible accounts - primary and general. Look for the clintons to find new creative ways of collecting twice. Pelosi can help with this since she thinks two PACS are OK. but as we all know, the laws do not apply in the same way to Dems and the press looks the other way.

the hunger for truth is translating into booming ratings on Fox news. great thing about the market - it finds a way around when there is a demand. and you Libs thought the demand for truth was an old fashioned - pre-clinton notion. that depends on what the meaning of "is" is, I suppose.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

kemi, there is nothing wrong with doing a little bit of thinking.

The number $20 million is all over the place, I'm just thinking about what it might mean if it's a real number.

I'm particularly motivated to do thinking about these numbers, because this is the only campaign to which I've donated. What's so funny about that?

Personally, I feel that the breakdown I did of 93/7, 91/9 or the like would be a very HIGH number of max donors for a campaign owned "by the people" which is Obama's slogan ("Own a piece of this campaign")

I'd like to see Obama challenge "the people "to keep up with the max donors!

I'm saying this as a supporter of his who believes that Americans are smart enough to tell the difference between right and wrong, slick and sincere. Being straight with numbers really helps in the long run. Americans really are smart enough to figure this out.

Why won't Obama say how many max donations he has received, up front, and say straight out, Hey people, to match this, we need 200,000 donations @$50 or whatever.

Basically, ANY candidate should provide their distribution of donation levels. Reporting only the total and the average is one way to weasel out of reporting the whole distribution.

Reporting only the number of donations is simply a different way to weasel out of reporting the whole distribution and I don't like seeing Obama do that... esp. since one of those donations is mine!

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Romney 22 mil

Giuliani 14 mil.

New front runner?

Posted by: George | April 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

funny seeing how golgi is busy cutting and slicing Obama's numbers that HAVE NOT been released while mentioning nothing of Edwards or Hillary's that's released already.

Posted by: kemi | April 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You are right, king. I really meant, what DD is thinking about the Obama campaign, which might possibly reflect what the campaign is really like...

Numbers. I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming a total of $20 million over 85,000 donors (the former given the round number guess being tossed around the Net, the latter from the number 83,531 currently on BHO's home page). There is a very, very large number of possible ways to get that pair of numbers.

One would be -
85000 donors total
For every 100 donors
7 gave the maximum of $2300
93 gave $80 each
Total approx. 20,000,000

Another would be -
85000 donors total
For every 100 donors
9 gave the maximum of $2300
91 gave $20 each
Total approx. 20,000,000

No matter how you slice it, though, since 20 million divided by 85000 is only $236, there have to be a LOT of people donating less than the max.

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

wow, "king", you dont see many people who have been frozen in ice for 5 years and seem to have no idea what has occured since then. You might want to read a newspaper or two before talking about Democrats being the ones without facts.

Posted by: will c | April 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

golgi - DD has no way of knowing that info unless he works for the campaign. consider it fiction - the staple of Dem politics.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The FEC will release all the data in april. Until then, it is propaganda from the campaign. Hillary is trying to shut down the efforts of competitors with a pre-emptive strike. this is the Dem MO, don't fight the battle, try to win by chicanery. all spin, no facts needed. anything bad happens, tell about it on friday night after ten.

It still seems to me that hillary as the nominee is a foregone conclusion. those nasty clintons will simply stomp the life out of anyone who gets in their way. for proof, just examine their history. still don't see how she will get over 45% or gain any states that went red last time.

Result - R wins no matter who runs. Many voters don't vote for someone as much as against someone else. hillary will demonstrate this phenom.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

DD made interesting points about the types of donors who are giving to Obama's campaign.

Perhaps when that campaign does release the big sum, they will also release the distribution of number of donations per size of donation.

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Edwards' team said $13 million was primary money while $1 million could be spent only if Edwards becomes the Democratic nominee."

What's the point of donating general election money this far in advance? Are big donors just doing that to get in good with the candidates? Because there's a very good chance of that money going to waste. I could understand donating general election money late in the primary campaign, but right now it seems very early.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

What about the republican fundraising? When aare we going to hear about that? You've been strangely silent on it, CC.

And what about Tancredo and Tommy Thompson announcing today?

Hello? Wake up CC...

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

What about Mitt Romney's annoucement? Does that propel him ahead of Rudy? McCain?

Posted by: Amod Damle | April 2, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company