Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Counting on Sen. Clinton

Candidates running for reelection this November filed financial reports with the Federal Election Commission over the weekend, and, once again, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) emerged as the big winner.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sen. Clinton addresses the Economic Club of Chicago on April 11. Her huge campaign warchest could be a boon to fellow Democrats this fall. (AP)

Clinton raised $6 million from Jan. 1 to March 31, ending the period with $19.7 million in the bank. Her showing marks the second straight fundraising quarter where she managed to crest the $6 million mark -- dwarfing what any of the other 32 senators up for reelection have collected in a single three-month period. Since coming to the Senate in 2001, Clinton has raised $39 million for her 2006 reelection bid.

There is considerable incongruity between the pace of Clinton's fundraising and the quality of her Republican opponents -- former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Public Affairs Kathleen Troia McFarland. Neither is seen as capable of mounting a strong challenge to Clinton this year. The lack of seriousness given to the two Republicans' campaigns by GOP donors is borne out by their fundraising since January 1 -- Spencer ended the period with $340,000 on hand while McFarland had $430,000 in the bank.

So why does Clinton continue to collect campaign cash at such a torrid rate? Her inner circle insists it is simply to protect herself against a variety of independent groups that have promised to spend millions to tarnish her this fall. Most independent observers, however, believe she is stocking away cash for an expected presidential run in 2008. (Any money that Clinton has left over in her Senate account following her reelection race can be directly transferred to a presidential account.)

Such a massive warchest is also sure to draw the attention from Democratic Senate strategists -- and Clinton's colleagues -- looking for a cash boost in the final days of the 2006 campaign; under campaign finance rules Clinton is allowed to make unlimited money transfers to national party committees at any time.

Although the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee held a $27.4 million to $14.5 million cash-on-hand edge over its Republican counterpart at the end of February, there is considerable concern in Democratic circles that the huge cash edge that the Republican National Committee enjoys over the Democratic National Committee could be brought to bear on Senate and House races this fall.

Clinton would not be able to match the RNC dollar for dollar, but a considerable donation on her part would help to level the playing field somewhat. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said his boss had not had any conversations with Clinton about donating a sizeable chunk of her cash on hand to the DSCC, and DSCC spokesman Phil Singer praised Clinton as having done "everything that we have asked of her." Recent history suggests, however, that Clinton is likely to be the target of repeated appeals from within the party over the next few months.

At this time in the 2004 cycle, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had nearly $21 million on hand and only state Assemblyman Howard Mills (R) standing in his way for a second term. As it became clear that Schumer would trounce Mills at the ballot box, pressure grew on the senator to contribute a portion of his warchest to help Senate Democrats across the country. In mid-September he relented, starting with a $1 million donation parceled out between the DSCC and state parties involved in top tier Senate races. By Election Day, Schumer had given $2.5 million to the DSCC and its related entities -- making him the single-largest donor to the organization in the Democratic Caucus. Those contributions made Schumer a shoe-in for the chairmanship of the DSCC when he expressed an interest in the post following the 2004 election.

Many within the party believe Clinton should follow Schumer's lead, especially given the real possibility of a Democratic takeover in the Senate, which would require a six-seat pickup.

Democrats, it appears, may not need to worry about whether Sen. Clinton shares the wealth this year. She has been the Democrats' most dependable and committed fundraiser since coming to the Senate in 2001. At the end of 2005, Clinton had raised $52 million for candidates and party committees, according to estimates by her aides, and she has used HILLPAC -- her leadership political action committee -- to dole out an additional $2.3 million in contributions since 2001.
Clinton's reelection fund, Friends of Hillary, has donated $330,000 to the DSCC since 2001.

The question remains: Will Clinton keep much of her campaign bankroll to fund her 2008 White House run? Given her track record on fundraising, however, she may not have to.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 17, 2006; 1:45 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Eye on 2008 , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill Frist: The Howard Dean of the GOP?
Next: 2008: The Case For John Kerry


The only way HRC can carry the general is if they can somehow incorporate Bill into the picture. I am talking almost painting it like a 2 for 1 combo. People believe that she is qualified to be Pres but think she's cold and calculated which means she needs a warm face on the ticket... Keeping Bill on sidelines means disaster for HRC. We all know her chances of carrying the general are small by herself. I think we underestimate the countries fond feelings towards Bill. Al gore lost in 2000 because he kept Clinton on the sideline thinking he had to separate himself from Clinton's low numbers on "values." The moderate community is passed being concerned with values issues. There are WAY too many large problems right now that the Dems can/should capitalize upon. For the Dems to focus (or even respond) to the whole values debate would be seriously counter productive.

As far as VP is concerned (assuming Bill is front and center) all the Dems need is a VP that can carry his own (red) state. Bayh would be a good fit. Indiana is def a red state that Bayh has consistently shown he can carry. (Two term Gov now Sen.) He has a nice looking family and is viewed as having good moral/family values which could also be beneficial to Hillary. Hillary-Bill/Bayh is the only way I can foresee Hillary being able to carry the general.
The worst thing the Dems could do is put Obama on the ticket will Hillary. He is too good to be soiled if the whole Hillary thing blows up in the Dems face.

Posted by: Will Denk | May 30, 2006 12:11 AM | Report abuse

As a democrat, I hope Hillary is the nominee. She will be the smartest and work the hardest and any right wingers who think otherwise are fooling themselves. She absolutely CAN win.

Posted by: Craig | April 28, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Tammy gave us a long list of Democrats seeking the nomination in 2008, and I agree it will be interesting to watch them all go to battle for who will be KING OF the hill, so to speak.

Kerry has a chance to put Hillary on his ticket in 2004, and I wonder if any reporter would ever get an honest answer from Kerry or Clinton about why she was not on the ballot? Was Thersea involved in making sure Hillary was not able to overshadow her husband? Were the Democrats so afraid Bill Clinton would overshadown Kerry? How much territory of the White House would Hillary have demanded for her loyalty to help Kerry win?

Has any reporter ever thought of this stuff? John Kerry is washed up, pure and simple. John Edwards might have a chance but he failed to help the Democrats win a single Southern state, which includes his own state of North Carolina. The good ol boys of the South rejected the Dems, and that is a fact few can ignore.

Back to 2008, it will all depend on the results of 2006, and if the Republicans stay in control of the House and Senate, it will prove the power of the White House to maintain their base and get them to vote. Karl Rove is brilliant and he just might fool the liberals this time.

Posted by: Jill | April 23, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I remember when there was a movement by the Dems to put Eleanor Roosevelt on the ballot in 1952. Politics has changed a lot over my life, and I hope we have a woman on the ticket in 2008, either Hillary or Condi. I really don't care because I like them both.
Eleanor was the eyes and ears of her handicapped husband, but she might have been a better candidate than Adlai Stevenson. I cheered with Geraldine was on the ticket with Mondale, but it was the corruption of her own husband which dragged down the ticket. The bad thing about Hillary is the shadow of Bill Clinton, and unless she figures out how to separate herself from her hubby, I think it will hurt her.
But as I said, I like Hillary and Condi. So we shall see what happens.

Posted by: Esther | April 22, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Alan asked about unspent campaign money, so here is the answer.

Hillary and Allen can take whatever is left in the 2006 Senate account and put into their 2008 account. John Kerry has $14 million left over from his failed 2004, and he is greatly overshadowed by the Bill Clinton/Hillary two for the price of one empire. That is just a fact the Dems will have to deal with, a GIANT size Hillary lurking over all the other hopefuls for 2008.
On the other hand, if Condi steps into the race in before January 2008, she will have national admiration and high approval ratings.
I wonder how many Republicans have made up their minds yet on which person they want as president. It is 1 1/2 years before all the political dreams hit the road in the start of the offical race January 2007. It will be watched around the world, and I think the Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative Party will be Condi. Rumors are swirling about a real shake up in the White House that she will be the next VP. Oh dear, I can see the Dems sweating that one confirmation hearing.

Posted by: Cheryl | April 20, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree on the "un" Hillary battle. There are 10 guys seeking to counter Hillary for the nomination. It will end up being a battle to be watched, and you can bet Billy Boy will be right in the middle defending Hill from being attacked by the Dems. So roll up your sleeves Dems and liberals, you have the battle of the new century on your hands. Billy boy will need her to clean up after him.

Posted by: Pete | April 19, 2006 10:39 AM | Report abuse

My opposition to Hilary is partly philosophical and partly personal. Sorry but I am being honest as is the case with a sizeable number of voters when they vote on election day. I have nothing against her gender, but she certainly doesn't strike me as my ideal woman. I used to like her husband until the mid 1990s when I just turned off with his scandals (part of it was a witchhunt and part of it was his own doing). I could vote for tons of other women for president: kathleen Sebelius, Claire McCaskill etc. Hilary I can't..she just doesn't sit well with me. Philosophically, she strikes me as an opportunistic power hungry attention seeking individual (same with mcCain) and I don't want a dynasty nor do I want a redemption song. I like midwestern type strong values politicians..folks who are not too flasy or into themselves..just people who want to serve their fellow man, are comfortable in their own skin, do what's right when no one cares and don't hog all the limelight. Clinton (both) seemed to be too much into themsevles for power and all its glory. I'm a lifelong democrat and like most reasonable people I am persuadable but Hilary Clinton as the Democratic party nominee cannot persuade me nor any swing voter west of Philadelphia or east of California.

Posted by: Nick | April 18, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow, long list of messages. I agree with WILL, there is a new for new blood, so Hillary will just look at if she is seeking the White House to clean up her husband's mess. (all that pardon & bribery stuff when he left in January 2001)

The dynasty label will be used against Hillary as well as when compared to Jeb Bush. So those are 2 items which will add baggage on Hillary's back.

On the Condi grooming issue, again, she would be new blood and refreshingly so. The nationwide effort to get her to run, putting her on the ballots of states, building a team for Iowa, these are all being done in the open. So the Dems can't claim conspiracy to get Condi to run as president or VP in 2008. The nation loves her, and I think the latest poll shows 60% job approval. She seems to be a smart woman with character and leadership; so it would be interesting to see what happens after the 2006 election cycle.

Posted by: Cheryl | April 18, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The expression, by the way, is "shoo-in," not "shoe-in."

Posted by: Tommy | April 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I support what other are saying. Hillary Clinton has positioned herself hugging with conservatives on the right, while still having the label of out of the mainstream radical liberal. We Democrats need to take a chunk out of the Republican base, and the only way to do that is to support accomplished good Democrats like Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Warner of Virginia, or John Edwards of North Carolina with General Wes Clark securing the national security flank as VP.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2006 8:43 AM | Report abuse



April 17, 2006 -- General Richard Myers, the retired Air Force General and ex-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, has countered the criticism of several other retired generals on the lack of leadership and management abilities of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. There are several reasons for Myers' support for Rumsfeld. First, the generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld are from the Army and Marine Corps, the branches that have suffered the most casualties and are bearing the brunt of the Iraq fiasco. Myers, on the other hand, is a professional pencil sharpener and paper pusher general who has seen very little combat in "tough" duty stations in Hawaii, Colorado, Alabama, and Japan as opposed to his Marine Corps and Army colleagues. However, this editor personally witnessed testy moments at Pentagon press conferences during the Iraq war between Myers and Rumsfeld, so there are obviously other reasons behind the general's support for Rumsfeld. One is that Myers, who hails from very Republican Kansas, was able to secure a high ranking job in the Bush administration for his niece, Julie Myers, who now serves as the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security/head of the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Myers' only qualifications for the job: having uncle Richard go to bat for her and the endorsement of her her husband, John Wood, the chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Myers also has wasted no time in dipping into the coffers of the bloated budget of Bush's military-industrial complex. He serves on the board of Northrop Grumman. Also on the board of John Deere, Myers rubs shoulders with the retired chairman of Lockheed Martin. Donald Rumsfeld has taken good care of Myers in retirement and its obvious that Myers is returning the favor in spades.

The way it works in the Bush regime: Chertoff takes care of Myers' niece Julie and Dick takes care of Don Rumsfeld and Dubya.

Having Myers come to his defense does nothing to help Rumsfeld, except in the eyes of Washington's sycophantic corporate media. Now that the Pentagon neo-cons have sent out a one-page point paper or "fact sheet" to several retired generals to convince them to come to the defense of the almost universally despised Rumsfeld, we can expect other generals, including some notable names, to show their displeasure at this blatant attempt at intimidation and join the chorus of those demanding Rumsfeld's firing.

Posted by: che | April 18, 2006 2:39 AM | Report abuse

Another Prez Clinton or not, just hope this time u guyz pick someone with more brains, honesty and compassion than Bush the second.
Plz save the world from another dedaly war so that v can have some peace.

Posted by: Observer | April 18, 2006 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Should we go moderate? Is going with Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, or John Edwards going moderate? Is it a crime? My answer is no for all. We need to stand up for what we believe in, we need backbone, and we need to fight Republicans. What do Bayh, Warner, and Edwards have in common? They won in red states, they were able to go past our traditional Democrat family and capture moderate to liberal Republicans. We need that kind of skill in our candidate in 2008. I have watched Bayh, Edwards, and Warner many times and none of them think we should go against our traditional Democrat moral values. As for Edwards the 2004 vote was a vote on Kerry not Edwards.

Can Hillary go out and get swing Republicans? Well her last senate election she got like 55% of the vote less than Kerry and Gore got in the state. She also did worse than Kerry and Gore in the rural parts of New York. So, if people think that she can pull rural areas they are sadly mistaken. As for me, I am a liberal populist, I am not a member of the far left, and I am not a moderate, but I support Democrats that stand up for what they believe in that just so happen can what?...can win in red states? God forbid us Democrats supporting a Dem than can eat into 10% or more of the Republican base and win back the White House. Besides, Hillary has voted like a moderate conservative these last few years, but has the tag of being a Northeast out of mainstream liberal. So, if we nominate her we get the worse of both worlds, a moderate conservative with the reputation of being another Northeast liberal. So God I pray that we Democrats get pass Hillary Clinton and support principled Democrats that can win.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | April 18, 2006 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Democrats could make history in 2008... but they won't. They're so busy eating each other. Republicans smile...... you'll be back.

Posted by: tctaft | April 18, 2006 12:12 AM | Report abuse

looking forward to seeing Hilary, Al, Bill, and Edwards again...

it could be a party.......

may be a third party...disguised as the

"just quit lying to me" party.


Posted by: actually, I'm | April 17, 2006 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm really sick of hearing about how Democrats need a 50 state strategy and can win with...(fill in the blank, anyone other than HRC). John Edwards? Really? Already lost once. We went the safe, moderate, can't-commit-to-a-point-of-view-to-save-their-lives route once already. I wish Democrats would learn one thing from Republicans...stop apologizing for your ideals and your agenda. Instead, convince the country you're right.

Posted by: Alison | April 17, 2006 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Charles: I see what you're saying; wasn't the Hutsi (150,000 dead) and Tutsi (10,000 dead) Rwandan 'thing' worse? So is Darfur, probably (who can tell?). Different level of debacle although the civil war in Iraq could certainly achieve that level of mass death if it really spirals out of hand. As bad as Saddam was, a full scale Shiite-Sunni civil war could claim millions of casualties. All totally unnecessary. Thank you, GWB!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 17, 2006 9:07 PM | Report abuse

destroying is more what I do...

I destroy outdated notions about how to move forward by showing alternative ways...

I'm an engineer, not a philosopher...

what works for me _is_ what works, I could care less who shares a similar ideology...

that was one thing about Clinton that I admired...

His inability to be bogged down with embracing an idea, because it was his oppoonents...he didn't care who had it....he'd snatch it out of the air and claim it as his own if it made sense...

regarding internationalization/globalization...

you're not understanding something essential:

peasants are useful _only_ as long as you're in expansion mode....

well hey charles, we're not in expansion mode any more...and I've been to third world countries....and living in compounds surrounded by sewage and savagery is very 15th Century France......we don't have to revisit it.

there's more than one kind of raw-sewage, and sometimes it's in the thought stream...

the best world is where things work together in an ecologically compatible fashion, rather than the old fashioned slash and burn and discovering that erosion occurs...

blah blah blah...

the old, "I don't care about you, because I'm rich" won't work any more...

I prefer the swiss or canadian model, I prefer to start it now rather than later...we only had something approaching a democracy after WWII, and I lived during that time...I don't appreciate the current mentallity of keep the population stupid and manipulate them to elitist ends...

Posted by: actually I'm not interested in fighting... | April 17, 2006 8:17 PM | Report abuse

To hell with Hillary. As Democrats we need to look to candidates than are principled, and can win. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and John Edwards fits this profile. They have the right stuff to run a 50 state campaign strategy, where Hillary can only run on a 16 to 17 state strategy.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | April 17, 2006 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Now we're talking about globalization and the shift of the U.S. from an industrial base to an informational or service oriented base. Any country's greatest mistake is not adapting to a changing world and attempting to remain the "big dog" by using the same methods and procedures used since expanding beyond their borders (military/political and economics). Unfortunately, the U.S. was established by a group of rich (and attempting to be rich) men with shopkeeper mentalities. We have always been about the bottom line, sometimes to our detriment. When other countries beat us at our own game, we either scream about protectionism or we employ them! Recent studies are showing that outsourcing isn't the panacea so many business thought it was. They are slowly pulling back some operations and realizing they need more partnerships here to even their balance sheets both economically and socially. Big business needs to be more socially aware and worker friendly, but labor needs to stop being so greedy about somethings and be more realistic about the world economy. Unless you are living the Communist ideal, there is no reason everyone should be earning the same for different labor. Minimal education jobs shouldn't have the pay/perks of higher educated/technical fields. Conversely, the obscene profits and salaries of robber barons, corporate executives and politicians should ALWAYS be brought to light and disputed. Fight the powers that be....but be realistic :-)

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

although it may simply be the preponderance of resources in comparison to the rest of the world...

and a relative lack of corruption, which acutally seems to be moving towards a resurgence of

scroogelike mentality, the heck with "bob cratchitt"

middle class erosion is a very real thing, I know of many IT workers who are working in a different field,

as their jobs are sent to India.


in fact I know of factories that make silicon wafers for IT circuit manufacturers...

that compare plants in the United States, with ones in the Philipines at a cost level as if paying people a livable wage was a generosity...

when the semiconductor and the associated industries were created by the United States..

the point being, that the people at the semiconductor plant in the United States were being asked to compete with the Malaysian one "as if" they needed to go to equivalent salaries and benefits if they wanted to keep their jobs....

this way of pressuring is pandemic...

and needs to be soldered shut.

Posted by: well to a certain extent that's true... | April 17, 2006 6:57 PM | Report abuse

**Didn't sign my last "beat cop" post ** Yep, you're right that no one is thinking of the impact on the citizens of the world. That includes the U.S., China, India, Russia, Germany, North Korea, al-Qa'ida, Hamas, etc. As Pogo would say, "All politics is local!" Any social construct will do what it takes to advance their own political, economical, religious or ethnic agendas. The big difference is we are still the first choice for immigrants to make a better life for themselves and their families. Must be something they like about our national gestalt :-)

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 6:32 PM | Report abuse

however the cop is always suspicious,

and brings it home.

you know that too.

the fact that the current administration is being used by the defense department, but it is also

using them, to achieve economic continutity of it's goals...

saudi, kuwiat, iraq, afghanistan, caspian sea...china, pakistan, india

no one is thinking of the impact on the citizens of the world....


Posted by: yeah, I'd agree with that, | April 17, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

PNAC - The Project for the New American Century? No thanks, though the concept of advancing national interests is practiced by every other country in the world to various degrees. Don't really believe in hard right or left political dogma. Just think the U.S. is continually looked at and treated by the rest of the world like a beat cop....nobody likes you or wants you around until trouble starts...then do your job like WE think it should be done. The last thing a professional military wants is a war, since we're the one's getting shot at...not the politicians and activists back home. To them, it's just an occasion to advance their agendas.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

could see that CondiLIZARD Rice was being groomed to take over the front of the machine...

while they ground citizens up for food.


Posted by: I would imagine that anyone with an ounce of sense... | April 17, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

how did they feel about it?

resentful, fearful?

Do you think the current namecalling about Hillary is fact based or opinion based?

Is the fact that they know how to run mean that they're dangerous to the

"business as ussual" agenda?

let's talk, come on. I'm waiting.


Posted by: you know when the Romans lost power... | April 17, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

do you feel about PNAC?

care for an outing?


Posted by: so charles, how | April 17, 2006 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I often wondered, if/when someone leaves office, what happens to unspent campaign funds? Does it get returned to the donors, turned over to the national party, or what?

Posted by: Alan | April 17, 2006 5:48 PM | Report abuse

animosity would equate to it's base...

of having the "way things are"



Posted by: I would presume on some level that | April 17, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Judge Crater,

RE: The Balkans was "a debacle?" That would make Iraq WW-freakin'-III times 10. How many car bombs exploded in Sarajevo last week?

Don't understand your comparison. I was referencing our (eventual) response to the genocide in the Balkans, not making a comparison to past or current conflicts. Yes, the current war in Iraq is badly mismanaged at times and on hindsight was started on spurious arguments. That wasn't the point of my post. We took forever to get involved in attempting to stop the genocide in the Balkans and even then it was a cluster****. Our armed forces had their hands tied behind their backs and by orders of the president and the SecDef, were forced to listen to the blue helmets' orders to look the other way while men, women and children were being slaughtered. Yeah...that's a debacle.

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Thank you all for answering regarding Hillary but, like Wyoming noted, I still see some sort of societal sexism involved since I don't think if she was a man she would be viewed as harshly. She would still be viewed critically, but I don't think she would be as hated as she seems to be.

And RMill, I agree with you about the flat tax. That is something that may help the wealthy but would most likely hurt the middle and working-class.

Posted by: Jason | April 17, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry! The last post signed "Allison" was from me direct TO "Allison." Apologies.

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the clarification! I can get a bit snarky at times, such as with the sarcastic reference to Hillary's use of "The Prince," and I apologize :-) As to my use of hearsay references....I think they are at times just as valid as anything printed in a report or book, unless we are speaking of legal representation of facts. After all, newspapers are filled with "trusted sources" who's statements are presented as facts...and history books are filled with first hand observations reported by intermediaries as facts. All "facts" should be suspect without first hand knowledge, but we have to place our trust somewhere if we can't use empirical evidence. I was asked about my opinions, and I trust these people I referred one else has to. Cheers!

Posted by: Allison | April 17, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Russ Feingold for President in 2008!

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | April 17, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The Balkans was "a debacle?" That would make Iraq WW-freakin'-III times 10. How many car bombs exploded in Sarajevo last week?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 17, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know how a regressive tax like the falt tax helps working people?

The only way a flat tax is effective is if there are no deductions or exceptions and this would tend to hurt lower and middle income people. No tax credits for 1st time home buyers, business expenses, education expenses. I agree its too complicated now and toomany loopholes cause a myriad of problems but a flat tax as a solution? And as a personal note flat tax at 18% would double my payable taxes. Losing my child tax credit and 1st time home buyers credit, and it might even triple it.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Why no HRC? Same reason no Jeb Bush. Time for New blood. It's enough that Politics in this country is a two horse race, must it be a two family race as well.

Posted by: will | April 17, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse


Points well taken. Clinton did have his successes and I can agree with others that he did seem to generate a better sense of optimism than others have done (both Dem & Rep). I still have to fall back on the "big ticket" items he didn't get done, such as his (and Hillary's) much desired Universal Health Care programs. While I agree he was stymied by a deeply partisan Congress on a lot of these issues, a great president (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan) should be able to work around these roadblocks to some extent. Even his own party fought him on a lot of domestic issues (welfare reform, etc.). Also, for all the (agreed upon) mess W has made of our foreign policy, Bubba basically wanted everyone to like us so we went along with practically everything Europe wanted us to do. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! The Balkans was a debacle, our response to Middle Eastern provocation was uneven and weak and it was business as usual when it came to Asia (talk loudly/little stick). Again, I actually liked Clinton and appreciate the things he did get done...I just don't think history will judge him as an effective executive, only a popular one (according to the electorate).

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Charles, I believe the request for facts was in direct relation to your assertion that HRC was using Machiavelli's "The Prince" as some sort of reference for success. This was the fact requested and as yet, in question. In terms of using it as a reference with graduate school professors, I'm certain that's both allowed and encouraged. However, it would be quite another thing to tell one of your professors that they had based their careers on the tenets advocated by Machiavelli, without them saying they had. In addition, none of my graduate school professors would encourage me to assert any point using the method of "I know someone who knows someone who heard things." That might be a difficult "works cited" list to maneuver. Do you think there's an APA format for that?

And yes, before you ask, I read Machiavelli. In my eleventh grade history class. In high school.

Posted by: Alison | April 17, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Long Beach, seriously a life long Democrat, or a Zell Miller Democrat?
Why not Hilary--too much oppurtunism and baggage? If HRC was the nominee, I'm just a college kid so I can't lay claim to lifelong, but I'd write-in Senator Collins of Maine, and if it's McCain-Clinton, I'd vote for McCain. Otherwise, I'd vote Democratic.

I _really_ don't like the notion of bush-clinton-bush-clinton and I think Hilary's too ambitious and oppurtunistic.[NY Voters might not care about carpetbagging, but I do].

Posted by: college kid | April 17, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

RMill: apology accepted; it does sound like something I would've written if I thought the questions were worth asking.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 17, 2006 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Why is it any move HRC makes is considered power mongering and political opportunism, but all of the flip-flopping McCain has been done lately is written off with a wink and a nudge as wise navigation of a conservative-dominated primary. Seems hypocriticial to me, and I do wonder, as did Jason, that perhaps there's some sexism at play here.

Posted by: wyoming | April 17, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Kind of careening of topic but as far as "not much accomplished" during the Clinton administration, its true that great opportunity to do more was lost, through no help of the President himself - with help from Ken Starr and the GOP controlled Congress- but running four years of budget surplus totalling over $600 B after wiping out GHW Bush(deficit spending which has been subsequently squandered by Bush 43) while investing in America with more police officers on the street and not getting in the way of the greatest spurt of job creation of the past century (I won't give him credit for specifically creating the jobs as most Presidents are want to do but he didn't screw it up either) and record low interest rates (which have gone up steadily now for four years) is hardly "nothing".

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse


RE: "Charles, stick to factual history for your opinions. Machiavelli's "The Prince"??? Give me a break."

Clarify "factual history for your opinions" please? Does personally knowing people (Dems and Reps) who lived and worked under the Clintons during their Arkansas years and have first hand knowledge of HRC's tantrums, schemes and backdoor deals count as "factual history?" Does the historical paper trail of HRC's causes, statements and shady personal dealings count as "factual history?" I'm not sure what you mean by "factual?" I tend to base my opinions on verifiable and known you?

As to Machiavelli's "The Prince." The only break I'll give you is granting you the benefit of the doubt on whether you've actually read the book or even understand the philosophy behind it. My grad school profs didn't have a problem with my referencing it as a touchstone for modern political skullduggery...why should you?

By the way...I kind of liked Bubba when he was in office. Like Benny Hill mashed with JFK...not much really accomplished, but all that running around sure looked like fun :)

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I agree completely with the afforementioned flat-tax, which I'm assuming would include capital gains. When Jerry Brown ran in '92, he wanted to include capital gains in a flat-tax at 10%. When Forbes ran in '96, his flat-tax WITHOUT capital gains was 18%. Since our deficit has grown faster than our economy, I'm assuming the tax mentioned above is what the 10% in '92 has grown to.
Regardless, I think that a flat-tax including capital gains is our solution. The graduated income tax only hurts professionals who have spent years in school bettering their position in life, while capital gains, the primary source of income for the TRULY WEALTHY, end up being taxed at a ridiculously low rate. Right now, our market is suffering because too few people have enough disposable income to be good consumers. In the long term, we also have too little invested in the poorer regions of our nation to give those brought up in poverty the chance to acheive what they might with sufficient education and health care. Providing a basic safety net for all Americans is not socialism - it's good capitalism. Let's shift the tax burden away from the working class and allow them to actually OWN homes, obtain educations, and invest. This is how we succeeded in the past, and this is how we must succeed in the future.

Posted by: Response to Plat Tax | April 17, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Judge

I must have typed you because it was the last name I saw. Now I see there was no attribution.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I am not surprised at Long Beach (just disappointed) but it would be instructive for a discussion as to why a life-long democrat prefers Bush or B1-Bob to HRC.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 4:23 PM | Report abuse

From the 2005 Clinton Senate finance report:

Of the $21.428 M raised, only $759 K came from PAC's.

$20.446 M came from individuals.

NY- 6,449 donors gave $5.637 M. (avg $875 donation)
CA- 1,646 donors gave $1.573 M
(avg $955 donation)

1,109 Retired donors gave $720 K.
(avg $650 donation)
530 self-described homemakers gave $654 K. (avg $1234 donation)

With a limit of $2,100 per donation, she is average just under $1000 per donation.

Of donations itemized by state, she raised $13.304 M from 14,569 individuals for an average donation of $913.

This is a high level of contribution support but from a large donor base. Apparently, those that like her, really like her.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Long Beach, I find that really, really hard to believe. You might dislike HRC personally, but do you realy think your alternates are better?

Charles, stick to factual history for your opinions. Machiavelli's "The Prince"??? Give me a break.

In a few short hours the usual Hillary bashers will start posting, I think Chris does Hillary posts just to get the number of comments and hits for this blog up.

Why not do a post on the lack of GOP opponents in NY?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2006 4:15 PM | Report abuse

No matter how much Hillary raises she will NEVER get the vote of this lifelong democrat.

Never. Ever. Not even if Bush were running. Not even if Bob dornan were her opponent.

Hillary is a loser.

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | April 17, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Like any politician, HRC will stick a wet finger into the wind of the appropriate polling data (which doesn't exist at the moment regardless of the breathless response some of us have to polls that are more than 2 years early) and decide when the time is ripe. My bet is that she'll throw her support (and some of her funding) behind someone who has a chance of winning.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 17, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse


Another good source is

I believe that much of the animosity stems from the perceived power she held as First Lady and what she did with it (failed Health Care, Travelgate). For someone not elected to anything, there was a general sense that she was too involved (co-president).

There is probably some fallout from her investments and Whitewater as well. Her reaction of a right-wing conspiracy polarized her opposition.

There is also carry-over of power passing from one Clinton to another (much as was talked about early on about Bush 41 to Bush 43).

And finally there is probably a gender issue and how she dealt with the infidelities of her husband. It is widely speculated that she didn't leave Bill because she liked the power and she wanted to preserve her own aspirations (not sure of the logic of the latter- she would have probably garnered more support if she had left him).

And the Clinton years, as good as they were, were shadowed by the investigations. Leaves a lot of baggage on the table.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Ask anyone who lived in Arkansas during the Clinton years, or read Hillary's guidebook to politics and life, Machiavelli's "The Prince." She will do and say anything to get the power she craves, even putting up with Bubba's nonsense. This has nothing to do with her being a woman...just with her perfection of a political stereotype. DeLay or Clinton...same pony, different race.

Posted by: Charles | April 17, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

As a republican, I hope it is Hillary.

Posted by: Karen | April 17, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Since I rather not talk about money (to me it should not decide how we vote for President), I will raise a question for Hillary Clinton bashers. And by the way, I don't necessarily support Hillary Clinton in a primary campaign if she runs but also fail to see why she drives so many people to hate her so much. There are many people whose positions we disagree with but she seems to be disliked personally. Why? To me (and I'm a male, by the way) it strikes of the same reasoning as why there is a term "diva" for females but not an equivalent term for males. To me it is very sexist and one reason why we don't have a female President.

Again I am not saying that one shouldn't disagree with her, but why the apparent personal animosity for her?

Posted by: Jason | April 17, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

felicity - check out and

Posted by: reena | April 17, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Where can I find a list of Hillary's donors? Very few "liberals" out here support her so it would be interesting to see a list of the people who do with a nice little bio attached to each name - including political party registration.

Posted by: felicity smith | April 17, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

It would be easy to do the math if you mentioned the numbers you base your proposal on.

Gross income from all sources. Wages, interest, stocks, dividens, retirement, social security, etc.?

Posted by: Edwardo | April 17, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

America does not need a Socialist agenda , like this Senator would bring to the table , if relected , or elected President . Taxes are better off as a Flat Tax 17 % , with the income earner below 45,000 not paying a dime . do the math and see that America would be in the black , and the Economy booming if this were the case . And the Lobbyist craze would disappear . If this Senator would come out on this issue and support this agenda , then I would be in support of her .

Posted by: Anthony Newbill | April 17, 2006 2:08 PM | Report abuse

This is an ungodly amount of money for a race that is pretty much a done deal. She can give away $10 M or so and still raise it all back by the end of the year.

Posted by: RMill | April 17, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about that, I guess that should be Snow White and the 9 dwarves. But the debate would be the same? Who will challenge her as the "unHILLARY" to run in the primary?

Posted by: Tammy | April 17, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Add Sen. Chris Dodd, (Conn) among the lists of 2008 hopefuls nipping at the heels of Hillary. Let's see, there are so many Dems mentioned, seeking the limelight of 2008
Mark Warner
John Kerry
John Edwards
Russ Feingold
Wesley Clark
Gov Bill Richardson
Al Gore (yes, he just got mentioned in the Vanity Fair GREEN issue to run)
Gov Vilsack, Iowa
So would the term "Snow White and the 7 Dwarves" be a good way to describe the Dem lineup for 2008?
With the field so wide open, it seems those 7 fellows will try to get the nomination as the "unHILLARY", in order to rally their troops to stop her from being crowned for 2008. Any takers on this debate?

Posted by: Tammy | April 17, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company