Hillary Clinton's Unpaid Bills

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Disclosure reports show Clinton still deeply in debt « - Blogs from CNN.com


A commenter on this article said what I was thinking as I read it...

"Hillary cannot even deal with her own debt and she thinks she can run a country? And now her supporters are blaming her inability to clear her debt on Obama?"

Open Thread. Let' er rip.

Post Mortem Thoughts

Abe, commenting on 3 A.M. For Feminism by Michelle Goldberg

"All this belies the fact that--as you point out--almost none of this actually has to do with anything Obama did other than BEATING HILLARY. What we're really seeing is what happens when the entitlement of feminist identity politics gets into a conflict with the facts: That somebody has to win, and that somebody is the person who has the most delegates. As soon as feminism hits facts, either we have to scrap feminism or we have to scrap reality. Clinton's diehards chose to scrap the latter. What amazes me is the latent racism inherent in all the assumptions made by Clinton supporters. Countless times I've heard Clinton supporters proclaim Obama to be lazy, shiftless, and unworthy while Hillary was "hardworking" and "brilliant". I'll start kissing Clintonian rear end as soon as Clinton supporters get off this sexist-racist "Hillary is so much smarter" meme and start acknowledging that the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and a man who managed to ascend so quickly from state politics all the way to being the nominee of the Democratic Party is someone who is clearly nothing short of a genius. Start giving my guy some credit and I'll stop harping on the now-proven incompetence of your own candidate."

Posted by Kathleen Duffy

"Seriously, it's not that she is a woman. It's that she is Hillary Clinton. I'm a feminist, age 56. I wanted to vote for her. She kept stabbing me in the heart by campaigning like a republican, talking down to me, and pandering with the gas tax holiday. As for the pundits, I agree that some of the coverage was HORRENDOUSLY sexist. But if she had run a better campaign, she would have won handily in spite of some bad coverage. The people are fairer than the pundits."

Clinton Concedes

Hillary Clinton regained a measure of my respect today in conceding the nomination battle and pledging her support for Barack Obama's candidacy. While it did not stir me as Al Gore's concession speech did in 2000, it was complete in its terms. Her speech was conciliatory, emphatic and clear.

It was obvious that it cost her something personally. At several points in the speech, her voice appeared to catch and she was clearly fighting mightily not to cry. I appreciate that she did it, that it was emotional and I'm sure infinitely hard for her to stand down. With today's speech, she brings this nomination battle to a close and cedes the election spotlight to the democratic nominee - Barack Obama.

I do not think it is an overreach to say that because of Hillary Clinton, there will be a woman president in the country's near term future. She has without a doubt set a precedent and blazed a trail that will make the path for a future woman candidate so much easier because of the pioneering work that Clinton has done. She will be to the first woman president what Jesse is to Barack, an important precursor that sets the stage. I think its safe to say that she blazed the trail for women a bit further. For her accomplishments, the Season applauds her. Well fought, Senator.

Hillary's End Game and a Comment on the Bitter Taylor Marsh Crowd

Last night, Obama clinched the democratic nomination. With the superdelegates flocking to him in great numbers, several abandoning their support of Clinton in the process, and the party leadership openly acknowledging him as the presumptive nominee, Obama spoke to the nation.

But one voice notably absent in recognizing Obama as the presumptive nominee was that of his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. In her speech last night, she neither conceded the nomination nor suspended her campaign. Hours before, after several rounds of campaign message anarchy, she leaked to the media her supposed willingness to serve as Obama's vice president. However, in her speech last night, she said she was making no decisions and would confer with party leaders. And today, at AIPAC, in a speech she delivered immediately following Obama, she did not acknowledge him as the nominee and delivered remarks very much as though she remainded an active candidate.

Sophia Nelson, editor in chief of Political Intersection, observes:

"I am at a profound loss as to why it is the Senator Clinton has now made two public appearances since last night and she has YET to 1.) concede the democratic primary to Senator Obama, 2.) to acknowledge the history and historic nature of his becoming the presumptive democratic nominee (as he did acknowledge her last night for her historic candidacy and breaking down barriers for women) and 3. to give her resounding support for Senator Obama against John McCain in the fall.
.....I have no idea what Hillary is thinking and why she is not being more cautious and respectful of someone who is likely our next President of the United States."

Indeed, this is the question on the minds of many. The answer is manifest. Hillary is still running and she is gaming not for the VP spot, but the top spot. Were this not so, she would have acknowledged Obama as the nominee, pledged to support him and begun taking affirmative steps to unify the party. She is doing exactly the opposite, engaging in active psyops with seemingly conciliatory statements , while refusing to concede the nomination. She intends to maintain strategic ambiguity for as long as she is permitted to do so and hold open an option to challenge Obama in Denver based on her popular vote metric.

This is a massive show of disrespect to the party's presumptive nominee, one which grows more egregious the longer she carries it out, even as Obama has extended every grace to her, as I suspect he will continue to publicly do, as he did during his AIPAC speech.

Sophia's commentary continues: "Hillary will be Obama's first test of strength and resolve. If he cannot stand up to her, how can he stand up to the tyrants and villains of the world?"

This is absolutely correct. As irksome as I find it, Obama will have to use a great deal of political deftness in finishing off Hillary in order to prevent the party from fracturing irretrievably and deeply eroding Hillary's demographics. How the party responds now will be key. How long will they tolerate her continuing to undercut the nominee with tactics designed to supplant him even now with an end run at the convention or at a minimum preserve her leverage for a fall back VP spot?

I believe Obama has demonstrated he is up to the task. He beat her at the outside game and demonstrated that his inside game is equally strong against even this most consummate of insiders with his clearly favorable outcome at the Rules & Bylaws committee meeting. So I believe he and Michelle are more than capable of facing down this continuing challenge from Hillary and Bill. They are America's new political powerhouse couple. Thus far Team Obama has beaten Team Clinton and I believe they have done so without engaging in the wholesale tactics of smear and fear or displaying open and complete disrespect.

Speaking of open disrespect, I've kept an open eye on the Taylor Marsh blog through the primary campaign because I like to read viewpoints that challenge my own view of things. Other perspectives help to assess whats going on. But as this primary fight has worn on, I have increasingly found myself losing respect for the level of commentary coming out of this blog and basically now ascribe her to the dedicated Obama haters camp of people who have lost the ability to be fair in anyway to Obama. I suppose she might read my blog and conclude that I am equally as biased towards her candidate. Unfortunately for her, I'm right and she's wrong.

I was very curious to see how this crowd would handle defeat at the hands of Obama and this post is a clear indication of what the dominant response will be: BITTER BILE & SOUR GRAPES complaints that the process was unfair and undemocratic. While the democratic primary process clearly has its own share of perverseness, Taylor Marsh nor the crowd she represents would be making any of these vociferous complaints if Hillary had wrapped this thing on Super Tuesday. When they were not being beaten in the race for delegates, the rules were fine. When they began losing, when it became clear that they had tragically miscalculated in relying on a Super Tuesday strategy to win and took a beating in caucus states, losing the chance to make up the delegate lead, THEN they wanted to change the rules. They want the metric to be the popular vote, because they couldn't get the delegates. Simple as that. No matter how much they want to deny it or cover it up, the basic fact is that if Hillary can't win playing by the rules, then its okay to win by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

As a prime example of the most virulent of Obama haters (critics is inaccurate, as an honest critic would demonstrate a higher level of fairness and credibility) Taylor Marsh has engaged in a nasty level of vitriol and encouraged the Obama haters in race baiting in my view (Note: I am NOT and do NOT accuse her of being a racist). They have continually posted the most demeaning and hatefully toned ranting against Obama I have seen anywhere, alongside and often copiously more prevalent than any relevant, honest criticism. She has considered every tactic and action by Clinton as a fair game attack. She was profiled in the Washington Post, and the story observes her watching Obama's speech on clinching the nomination:

"On the TV screen, Obama paused from his talk of moving toward victory to praise Hillary Clinton’s "courage, her commitment and her perseverance."

"He better do this," Marshall said. "He better do a lot of this."

When Phleger spoke of a sense of entitlement in his pandering disparagement of Hillary Clinton, he was appropriately rebuked by Obama and others for the manner in which he rendered his comments, which were inappropriate in tone, phrasing, timing and place. However, Harriet Christian and in my view, Taylor Marsh, in the above comment, certainly display the type of entitlement attitude which does in fact exist and which Phleger so inappropriately referred to.

Obama has rendered gracious comment after gracious comment of late, but Hillary Clinton has returned all of that thus far with disrespect. Taylor Marsh and her comrade in arms Harriet Christian I'm sure, both feel that Obama should essentially genuflect, bow and scrape before Hillary and by extension, them, the Clinton demographic. He must extend her every courtesy, while she kicks dirt in his face. They demand respect, nay fealty even, while giving none in return. That is entitlement, and Taylor Marsh is guilty of it.

Rush Limbaugh on the SuperDelegates Dillemma

Rush articulates a position on the black response to a stolen nomination that black America dares not permit the Democratic party to fool itself about. May 1, 2008 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, for those of you who are Democrat superdelegates; may I have your attention, please? As you know, I addressed your fear yesterday, and I know how you people are thinking. You're in the depths of fear over what to do now, because it's clear that you, the superdelegates, are going to decide who is your party's nominee; and in the process, you are going to be committing political murder against one of these candidates. You alone are going to decide, and it used to be six months ago you were proud to be able to do this because you were operating from the context of confidence and inevitability. It was like a slam dunk. Now you're operating from fear, and incorrect decisions are made during times of crisis and fear. And the greatest fear that you superdelegates have... I mean, you can see the trend lines here. You know what's happening. The bloom is off the rose. The messiah, it has turned out, cannot walk on water. Mrs. Clinton's been hanging in there. She has got the testicle lockbox, and it's opening and shutting on schedule. You can see the trend lines, but you're scared to death to take this away from Obama because he leads in delegates; and you're really frightened that you are going to lose the black vote, perhaps permanently, if you take away the nomination. It must be apparent to you that Senator Obama will not lead you to victory. You have to know this. But you fear that denying him support will create a permanent fissure between black voters and Democrats. No Democrat has the courage to examine this flawed premise. It is up to me to advise and address you superdelegates to consider some facts. President John Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy wiretapped Dr. King. Black voters stayed with Democrats. Democrats stood in the schoolhouse doors vowing, "Segregation forever!" Democrats voted against landmark civil rights legislation; Republicans passed it. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Bull Connor was a Democrat. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats created the welfare state, destroying millions of black families. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats bent over forward for the teachers unions, ruining public education for generations of black kids; leaving them unequipped to participate as equals in American society. Yet! Black voters stayed with Democrats. Democrats urged the early release of criminals to further prey on law-abiding black citizens. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats threw blacks under the bus during the immigration debate. After Rosa Parks finally moved to the front of the bus, Democrats threw blacks under it during the immigration debate because Hispanics are now the largest minority voting bloc. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats have not supported blacks achieving power. Carl McCall was running for governor of New York, and was denied funds from Terry McAuliffe at the Democrat National Committee. This audience contributed to McCall's campaign. Civil rights icon Maynard Jackson wanted to be head honcho of the Democrat National Convention. He was denied. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Earlier this year in Selma, Alabama, Mrs. Clinton shows up; mocks the way black people speak. Her husband, Bill Clinton, the reputed "first black president," shows up in South Carolina and plays not the race card, but a whole deck of race cards! (doing Clinton impression) "Obama? Ha! Of course he gonna win. I mean, it's like Jesse Jackson. I mean, he's the black guy." Blacks stayed with Democrats. You superdelegates in the Democrat Party, you're worried about denying Obama the nomination because you fear that your black voters will abandon you permanently? Come, come! Review your history with me once again. You Democrats have already done far worse to black voters than yanking the nomination away from Barack Obama. Have no fear, superdelegates. Be confident. Blacks will stay with you. So will Jesse Jackson, so will Al Sharpton, and you can have them.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We'll start in Canoga Park, California. Hi Fred. It's great to have you with us, sir. CALLER: Hi, Rush. I think you're a racist. RUSH: Well, that's refreshing. Why, Fred? CALLER: Well, I -- I think you're insinuating that blacks are too stupid to have a learning curve. RUSH: No, I think you're inferring that. CALLER: No, I think you're saying it. RUSH: I'm not. You're inferring it. I'm not implying anything. I stated facts. CALLER: You're saying that -- RUSH: All these things happened, and Democrats continued to get the votes of the majority of black voters. It's just their political allegiance. It's not a comment on race or intelligence. CALLER: Well, you're saying there's nothing the Democrats can do that -- that'll stop the -- the blacks from voting for them, that the blacks are too stupid to even vote in their own best interests. RUSH: No, no, no, no. I didn't say that! You're putting words in my mouth. CALLER: Oh, you didn't say that? You didn't say that blacks keep voting for stuff that's not in their own best interests and that they can't learn? RUSH: I didn't say that. I did not say that. This is a classic illustration. You heard what you wanted to hear based on your own biases and prejudices. I simply recited some facts for you. These are not arguable. These things I said are not arguable. Now, you want to talk about why blacks continue to vote for Democrats despite this? I'll be glad to tell you about that. CALLER: Yes, let's -- let's hear the Rush psychology. RUSH: For 50 years, black people in this country have been told by elected Democrats that Republicans and conservatives are racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes; that they have no desire for them to become equal or progress economically -- and then you couple that with ministers like Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright reinforcing what other black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do, and it all becomes very simple. They have been scared to death. Black voters have been told for 50 years that their lives will be ruined if they vote for Republicans, because Republicans don't care about them. When you vote out of fear, it's the same thing the Democrats have done with elderly people, our seasoned citizens and Social Security. It's almost predictable that every election cycle, the Democrats, somebody, will predict or tell old people -- with phone calls, robophone calls, push polling or even blatantly out in the open -- senior citizens that Republicans want to take back their Social Security. I remember in 1988. I was in Sacramento, California, and Alan Cranston (the Senator from California then) was telling people on television out there, Republicans wanted to kick senior citizens out of their homes if Reagan was reelected. Now, if you're a senior citizen and you don't pay a whole lot of attention and you hear that and you're a Democrat and you have party loyalty going into this and you hear Cranston say that, and all you have is your Social Security; you're not going to take the chance that Cranston's wrong, because if he's telling you, "He's in the Senate. Why, he's a powerful man. He's a United States senator!" If he's telling you that Republicans will kick you out of your house or take your Social Security away, you're not going to take the chance that he's wrong. It's the same thing with the black population here. For 50 years they have been lied to. They have been made to live in fear of Republicans. It's gotten to the point here, Fred -- this is undeniable. Black people in this country who have achieved great things without going through the Democrat Party civil rights prescriptions to do so -- and I can give you a host of names if you want -- are routinely savaged and destroyed or at least attempts are made to destroy them, as Uncle Toms. For example, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele. There are a number of highly accomplished black people who have become Republicans, and they are held out as traitors. How can you explain it otherwise when young black kids are told in school if they learn to do well on tests, they're being "too white"? Who's telling them this? It isn't us. It's the Democrat Party and its agents. All I'm trying to do is make it easy for the superdelegates, here. They know they got a problem. The problem is that Obama cannot win. But they are afraid to pull the nomination from him because he's getting 80% of the black vote; and they think the black vote will not show up in November and vote Democrat, and I'm simply trying to tell them that there's a 50-year history of showing that they have done far worse. I mean, what worse can you do than destroy the black family with welfare, that didn't work, and took the place of the father and the husband? What more can you do to black people than destroy their family? And Democrats still vote for them. I have said on this program for countless years, countless times: If it were me, and I've been holding out hope and listening to the promises of a political party for 50 years -- and after all those 50 years I'm still complaining and whining about same circumstances I was in 50 years ago -- I'd begin to question my vote. "Wait a minute. You know, you guys keep promising these things, and nothing ever happens. You keep blaming the Republicans for my problems. You promise you're going to fix 'em, and then you forget us after the election. I think you're taking us for granted." I would start to question it. But that hasn't happened. It has not happened. The Democrat Party is perceived in the minds of 80 to 90% of the black population, as its only hope. This is the result of fear that's been instilled. So, this little litany of things I said to try to assure the superdelegates that they could do what they want without any fear whatsoever, blacks will leave them; is unarguable. It's pure, 100% fact.

Clintonite: Hillary as Suicide Bomber

Submariner, author of the blog Soul Conviction, commenting on still another blog, had the following thoughts about whether or not Hillary's campaign tactics are designed to position her for 2012. He suggests a different conclusion.

... the Democrats have ensured Republican occupancy of the White House for the next two election cycles. If Hillary had not essentially [run] a Republican campaign against Barack Obama then I would agree it's about priming herself for 2012. But look at what she did. After the Gettysburg moment of February 5 when Barack ran a Boston on her, the statistical outcome was not in doubt. Hillary Rodham Clinton not only continued in dogged fashion, she swiftboated Barack and conditioned the country for the calumnies being prepared by the GOP. She not only attacked Barack on the issues but also on his very nature. She even openly maligned his supporters such that even if she became the nominee we could never support her.

It was almost as if she didn't think that she would need us in the fall campaign. She not only advocates her bona fides but just yesterday in the Chicago Tribune she elevated John McCain over Obama. This is can't be undone. To openly proclaim the legitimacy of the Republican challenger over Obama has sealed her fate and maybe Barack's. This repeats the damage caused by Bill Clinton: loss of a Democratic Congress and Al Gore's defeat by Bush. It required about ten years to recover.

Essentially Barack has won a bike with flat tire. Barack was our JFK but HRC defecated on him. Because a white female Democrat was darkening Barack's complexion and casting doubt about him being a Christian the Republicans are free to pursue this to the fullest without turning the country off. HRC can't be the nominee because of the immediate exodus which would ensue. She can't be a VP because of the nature of her attacks. She can't really throw her support behind Barack without openly marinating in hypocrisy. The scorn she has heaped on Obama and his supporters is irrational to a degree approaching Faye Dunaway's portrayal of Joan Crawford. Hillary has effectively ended her chance at higher office.

What I'm at loss to understand is why did the leadership allowed her to singlehandedly wreck the party? Al Gore and John Edwards should have thrown their weight behind Obama after February especially when McCain was the presumptive nominee. Howard Dean should have been more vehement about the non-participation of Florida and Michigan. The leadership should have spoken to big money donors and told them to refrain from putting more money into the Clinton campaign, off the record comments about the futility of a Clinton comeback should have been made to superannuated political reporters like Bob Woodward. It was as if the owners of the manor just stood by idly as a mad woman defecated in the kitchen without thinking that eventually they would have to eat there. The Dems are dysfunctional.

Race Sniping A Deadly Trap for Democratic Frontrunners

Hillary Clinton's campaign has drawn fire for statements she or her surrogates have made that have been poorly received by african american voters. Her comment regarding Lyndon Johnson and MLK seems to have drawn the most ire, suggesting that it was Johnson's presidential powers rather than the commitment and life risking political resistance of MLK and the movement that brought about the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Sen. Clinton is accusing the Obama camp of stirring the pot. Sen. Obama has called her remarks ill-advised, an accurate comment to say the least.

There is a deadly trap in this increasingly vitriolic confrontation for both candidates. For Clinton, she runs the risk of alienating in droves black voters and driving them right into the arms of Obama to lose the nomination. Or, she could win the nomination and lose the election because blacks vote republican or stay home in the general out of anger for the hardball tactics. For Obama, the focus on race could make that the dominant focus of his run, despite his best efforts to prevent race from becoming the sole prism by which his run is evaluated, with the result that non black voters are turned off, draining necessary vitality from his nomination run and his chances in the general.

The race issue carries within it the seeds of destruction for both campaigns. If they are not careful, they will reap what they sow.

How Clinton Could Make a Comeback

From RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog

There are two features of the Democratic nomination process that could help Hillary.

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates proportionally. Candidates win "pledged" delegates based not on whether they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they still won a few delegates.

Second, about 20% of all delegates to the Democratic convention are "super" or "unpledged" delegates. This quirky provision - which does not have a corollary on the Republican side - has its origins in Chicago, 1968. In the wake of that disastrous convention, the DNC formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission to recommend improvements for the nomination process. McGovern-Fraser suggested that the process be opened to rank-and-file Democrats on the principle of "one Democrat, one vote." The reforms contributed to George McGovern (the same McGovern from the commission) winning the nomination in 1972. The party establishment did not like this. So, it added the super delegate provision to serve as a check on the party rank-and-file.

This year, according to the indispensable Green Papers, there will be 798 super delegates at the convention in Denver. They include all elected members of the Democratic National Committee, all current Democratic members of Congress (including non-voting delegates), all sitting Democratic governors, and past party luminaries (e.g. former presidents). Unlike pledged delegates, who are bound to particular candidates, super delegates are free to vote their consciences.

Here is how these rules could help Clinton.

Suppose that Clinton stumbles early, but rebounds later. By the end of the nomination period - she draws even with Obama in the primaries. She wins 45% of the aggregate vote. He wins 45%. Edwards, who in this scenario dropped out some time before the end of the season, wins 10%. That could yield the following count among pledged delegates:

Obama: 1,464 delegates
Clinton: 1,464 delegates
Edwards: 325 delegates

This leaves the 798 super delegates, who can support whomever they choose. Let us suppose, in this scenario, they divvy up the way the Hill reports declared members of Congress have so far split their support between the three major candidates: 62% for Clinton, 25% for Obama, and 13% for Edwards. That would change the delegate count to:

Clinton: 1,967 Delegates
Obama: 1,664 Delegates
Edwards: 420 Delegates

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination. In this scenario, Clinton goes from being tied for first to having a solid lead, and just 58 delegates short of the nomination. If she could persuade about three-fifths of the Edwards' super delegates to back her, she would win.

Now, this is not a prediction about what will happen. It is simply meant to illustrate that the rules of the nomination process give Clinton two advantages.

First, the proportional allocation rule buys Clinton time to get her campaign back on track. This is critically important. Most people assume that February 5th will be the end of the nominating season. Not necessarily. Remember that 44% of all pledged delegates will not be allocated until after Super Tuesday. Clinton could use the proportional allocation rules to keep the delegate count close through February 5th - and then draw even with Obama toward the end of the season. Perhaps as the press starts to examine him with the scrutiny that they give to frontrunners, Democrats will come back to "old rough and ready" Clinton.

Obama fumbles....again

FOXNews.com - Obama: '10,000 People Died' in Kansas Tornado - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Obama is making a few stumbles out there on the campaign trail. His initial flubbing of the "what would you do in the event of a terrorist attack" question at the debate, and his overstatement of the death toll in the Kansas tornado. The gaffes by themselves are not fatal. In fact, given that the electorate is largely unlikely to focus on the campaign until after Memorial Day, one can make the argument that if there is a time to make such "non-lethal" mistakes, this is it. None the less, if his campaign becomes a string of such gaffes, they could become fatal errors.