Anti-Clinton well dries up - GOP donors shut wallets

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/455393p-383168c.html

The vast right-wing conspiracy seems to have gone broke.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's run for reelection was supposed to be a magnet for anti-Clinton money.

Millions poured in from around the country to her 2000 opponents, first Rudy Giuliani, then Rick Lazio.

It was expected to be a repeat in 2006, especially given that it presented an opportunity to cripple her before a possible 2008 presidential run.

<snip>

But the dough failed to materialize. Both anti-Clinton PACs not only fizzled but went into debt.

Finkelstein's managed to scrape up about $13,000 - but spent about $47,000, much of it on failed telemarketing to raise more. In May, he conceded he had failed to derail her. "It's more than likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee," he told the Jewish Ledger weekly.

[whistle]

1. Does that include Richard Scaife's billions?

[Tellurian]

19. I think Hillary will do fine..

She won't be going into this willy nilly..

Bill is starting to get out there, clearing
the brush, setting the media straight, and
firming up a foundation to be built on.

Indy, when you cave in...I'm buying the drinks!

[lisa58]

2. A New York Senate Race is completely different

from a national presidential race - if she runs and gets the nomination - the money will flow to her opponent.

[William769]

4. Will also flow to her.

[AX10]

3. And just look at all of the money flowing into the Democratic party!

[IndianaGreen]

5. If Hillary runs for President, there will be antiwar demonstrations...

at every Hillary political appearance, I guarantee you that!

Hillary will have to dodge shells lobbed at her from both her flanks. The antiwar Left and the Right will have a field day making mince meat out of her.

Face it! Hillary lacks all of her husband's charm and charisma, not to mention good will that he generates even among the antiwar Left. Her married name is the only Clinton she has to offer, and that won't be enough for her to win.

A Hillary nomination would be a Rovian wet dream for the GOP!

[juajen]

10. Needless to say, a lot of people disagree with you

We had only one dem who voted against the war resolution, Russ Feingoln.

John Kerry and John Edwards both dodged bullets galore and kept on fighting. Hillary is a fighter. We should celebrate her, not condemn her.

She is being sandbagged by her own, as well as pugs, hopefully unsuccessfully. Shame on everyone for not acknowledging her worth and skills, and the brightness, light and intelligence she would bring to Washington as the first female President. I believe she will survive; but, what a thankless job, cleaning up the mess left behind by this administration.

[KaptBunnyPants]

15. The IWR is an albatross to all who signed it, but

I think her biggest problem is that she has yet to acknowledge her mistake. John Kerry, Edwards, and others who are vying for the nomination have already renounced their decision, but so far she is content to merely attack Bush's execution of the war. She may be able to squeak through on the idea that Iraq could have been a good war if only it had been done correctly, but I think a complete disavowal of this fiasco is the stronger political position.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Kerry, Edwards, and others have redeemed themselves

while Hillary remains in the same prowar position favored by Joe Lieberman.

Who needs another Lieberman, even if it is a woman named Rodham-Clinton?

[IndianaGreen]

17. Hillary back stabbed Murtha, and she did not join Kerry and Feingold

in their resolution to exit Iraq within a year.

Voting for Hillary solely on the basis of her gender makes as much sense as voting for Bush solely because he is a "Christian" man.

[LeftyMom]

23. Shame my ass.

People are welcome to thier opinions on her worth, whether you happen to agree with them or not.

As a canidate, she's the pits because she's just not very likable. Her stage presence and warmth makes Gore (and I mean 2000 Gore, not present day Gore, who is a bit less of a cold fish) seem like a rock star by comparison.

As a senator, all that distinguishes her is her centrism and the name on her placard.

I want to see a woman in office too, but I'm cure as hell not going to support soembody who can't and shouldn't get the job on the basis of having ovaries.

[SOS]

30. Re: Shells lobbed from the Right

From today's NYT on the right-wing Christian fundamentalists trying to re-invigorate their base:

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, looked ahead to 2008 and the possibility that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton might be the Democratic presidential candidate. Ms. Clinton’s nomination, Mr. Falwell said to laughs, would arouse even more evangelical opposition than Lucifer’s."

Droves of fundies at the polls. Antiwar Dems pissed. Not a hopeful scenario for recapturing the White House in 2008.

[aquart]

6. What ELSE have they shut their wallets on?

How are other PACs doing, now that Tom DeLay isn't twisting arms anymore?

[msongs]

7. hillary is pimping for da cash everywhere including California

we get 2 or 3 solicitations per month for her senate campaign (ha ha, that's a laugher) and we are 3000 miles away from New York.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[davidinalameda]

8. I think they finally took me off the mailing list

[stevietheman]

9. Repugs want Hillary to get the Dem nom in '08 -- that's why they don't...

attack today.

[truthisfreedom]

12. they should be careful what they wish for.

she's been a very effective senator. she'd make a very effective president...

[MGKrebs]

11. HC is not my favorite candidate but...

It is quite clear that at this moment she is BY FAR the most potent Dem candidate we have.
She has tons of money
Has much of the top national campaign staffers
Has never lost an election
Has a nationwide base
Get's press all the time
Is as well connected as it gets
A so-called "centrist" record with wide mainstream appeal

The right fringe has had to MAKE STUFF UP to try to demonize her. She had no record beyond universal healthcare for them to attack, so for the past 5 or 6 years they have been inventing conspiracy theories and acting as if routine staff additions indicate the End Times are here. If anything, I think it is more likely that Hillary is somewhat more immunized from right wing attacks becasue she knows exactly what's coming and knows how to fight it, because she's been doing it for so long already. There will be less suprise attacks against her than anyone else.

Yes, there are probably 20 million people who will never vote for her. So what.

Personally, I also feel that the moment is here when universal health care is on everyone's mind. The time is right, and she might be the perfect person in just the right place to get it done.

[MadMaddie]

20. All good points and I agree Universal Health Care may come

back to bite the Neocons in the ass....which just proves Hillary was way ahead of them on this issue..

[w4rma]

13. She is high on name recognition, atm. She should stay in the Senate.

She is effective in the Senate.

Besides, Americans aren't going to vote for someone, in the general, they derisively call "Hillary", instead of Mrs. Clinton.

[saracat]

21. I don't really want Hillary to be the candidate but this is the silliest

argument against her I have ever heard. The fact that the voters call her "Hillary" instead of Mrs. Clinton means nothing. Many voter called Bill Clinton "Bill" they call Bush "W" and 43. Johnson was LBJ.This can be derisive for some but for most it doesn't mean anything except an example of how well known she is. If a voter thought it was derisive not to call any women "Mrs." anything, they wouldn't be voting for her anyway. I refuse to speak to anyone who calls me Mrs, and further I know they don't know me as I never took my husband's name. I think a woman taking her husband's name is degrading. My name is just as important as his. I was saddened when political expedience forced Hillary to take Bill's last name.But that was long ago. In this case, "Mrs.Clinton" might be the derisive term. JMHO

[w4rma]

22. It's derisive and dishonorable to call a former first lady by nothing but

her first name, imho. She's the first first lady in our history who has ever been treated like this. And the reason that big media has pushed this familial (rather than formal) name is because they want folks to attack her personally. And they have been successful in this.

[saracat]

25. Well, they called Eleanor Roosevelt "Eleanor"as well.

I don't think this is a biggie. We agree to disagree.And most people currently refer to Laura Bush as "Laura".And Betty Ford is Betty Ford , rarely Mrs. Ford. It is the Betty Ford Clinic not the Mrs.Gerald Ford Clinic and Nancy Regan is frequently just "Nancy". I think the last first Lady to be referred to as "Mrs. constantly was Mamie Eisenhower.There was "Pat" Nixon and "Jackie" will always universally be just "Jackie" , as the best example. Is that derisive too?

[samsingh]

14. isn't it all going to scarborough ?

[tanyev]

16. Darn. I was hoping to see them waste gazillions of dollars on her--

and then she would not even file to run, like she's been saying all along.

[Rageneau]

24. She should act like she's running even though she isn't...

so the wingnuts will spend gazillions of dollars preparing to run against her.

Then, she can throw her support to a now-better-funded Wes Clark.

[Jamnt]

26. I know I might get flamed for saying this...

but we will lose in 08 if she get the nomination. This country just isn't ready for a female president. I will vote against her in the primary and for her in the general if she gets there.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. You won't get flamed for that

Sadly, I agree with you on the issue of a female President, and I think that the first female President will be a conservative Repug like Kay Baley Hutchinson or Liddy Dole (neither or them specifically will run, but I'm doing general comparisons.)
Unfortunately, Hillary is too polarizing, and will do a a lot to help motivate the right-wing base.

[MGKrebs]

28. I have trouble with that argument after having witnessed

conservatives question Max Cleland's patriotism and John Kerry's service record. I just don't understand how people still think that anyone other than Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller will be less subject to demonization than H. Clinton. THEY WILL ATTACK ANYONE. THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING. THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO INFLAME THE CONSERVATIVE BASE, no matter who it is. It's just as likely that people will be burned out on the Hillary-phobia by the time it matters.

I suppose we could minimize the severity of attacks by nominating a candidate who no one knows, who can't raise money, and has no record, but I wouldn't like our chances.

edit- meant to reply to post #27 "polarizing" comment.

[BigDDem]

29. I'm sure there's a few folks here on DU

who opened up their wallets to the anti-Clinton PACs.