The Clinton Thread

[kang604]

To come in here and say "I don't understand how you can do this or that" is insulting. It is the equivilant to looking down upon someone and telling them "You're opinion is wrong and you are stupid for it."

i do not see how these two things equate each other.

 

[Kelly]

i do not see how these two things equate each other.

It's called perception kang..........and a person's perception is their truth.

What we mean when we type a post, may not necessarily be the way someone perceives it......BUT in the end, their perception is their truth.

And when its on a message board.....there is not the luxury of "tone of voice", "eye contact" etc.........

 

[StorminNorman]

Al Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college is the only thing which determines the winner of the election. Hence, Bush won by a technicality.

If Bush won the Electoral College and the Electoral College is what matters than Bush did not win by a mere technicality. He simply won.

 

[kang604]

It's called perception kang..........and a person's perception is their truth.

What we mean when we type a post, may not necessarily be the way someone perceives it......BUT in the end, their perception is their truth.

And when its on a message board.....there is not the luxury of "tone of voice", "eye contact" etc.........

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

 

[Excel]

Doesn't it require more of an effort to get along than to just continue fighting?

No, typing out all them fighting words takes more effort* than typing nothing

 

[Kelly]

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

Yep, labeling sucks....

 

[Marx]

No, typing out all them fighting words takes more efforting than typing nothing

I guess that's true Ex

 

[Rated-X]

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."

Just like with other businesses, it’s common for campaigns to carry unpaid bills from month to month, but in Clinton’s case, it also could serve a strategic purpose.

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.
The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.

The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain reported $4.3 million in debt at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week.
It’s not just the size of Clinton’s debts that’s noteworthy. It’s also that her unpaid bills extend beyond the realm of high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own.

Some of Clinton’s biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who’s owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who’s owed $467,000.

Clinton also reported debts more than one month old to a slew of apolitical businesses and organizations, large and small, in the states through which this historically expensive Democratic primary campaign has raged.

She owed Iowa’s Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire’s Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs, Qwest $24,000 for phone service, various branches of the Iowa-based supermarket chain Hy-Vee $15,000 for food, beverages and catering, and $7,700 to Ohio and Massachusetts branches of the theatrical stage employees’ union, for equipment costs.

In fact, about a third of the nearly 700 individual debts Clinton reported at the end of February were for various types of “event expenses,” including $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security.

Event production is important to big-time presidential campaigns. It shapes how candidates look and sound, not just to the thousands of people who turn out to campaign speeches and rallies but also to the millions who catch snippets of them on television.

And word is getting around that Clinton’s campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two of Youngstown, Ohio.

“I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally,” said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client.

The Clinton campaign paid the company $16,500 to set up a stage, press riser, sound system and backdrops at a Youngstown high school last month for a raucous union rally, where an aggressive Clinton stump speech drew thunderous applause. But the Clinton campaign has yet to pay Forty Two for two other February events, and the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn’t respond to a certified letter.

“We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment’s notice and do absolutely everything to a ‘t’ to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign,” said the employee. “Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.”

Forty Two also has done events for Obama’s campaign, which has paid its bills promptly, according to the employee. FEC records show Obama’s campaign paid the company $18,500.

Show Tyme Exhibits, another Youngstown event production company, has produced political events for years and had never had problems getting paid before Clinton, according to owner Jim Phillips.

He said he’s still waiting for a payment for setting up the sound system and stage for Clinton’s February tour of a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.

“It was only $607, but I’m a small guy; I could use that,” said Phillips, adding, “Everyone I can tell, I do tell about it. You tell somebody something bad about somebody, they tell 10 other people.”

Both Phillips and the Forty Two employee said they voted for Clinton in Ohio’s March 4 primary, which she won handily, but regret their votes and are reluctant to work for her campaign again.

Their sentiments aren’t universal in the event production world, though.

At the end of January, Clinton owed $38,000 to ACS Sound and Lighting of Columbia, S.C. But the company was paid in full last month and is planning to do events for Clinton in other states, according to manager Troy Gwin.

“We don’t have any problem with them,” he said. “I’d continue to do business after the primaries if she is the nominee. I would love to.”

And Tony Galarza, director of the Missoula, Mont., branch of a national event production company, remained committed to staging an April 6 Clinton fundraising brunch at a local hotel even after a colleague in his company e-mailed a list of Clinton’s campaign debts.

Galarza said he’s confident Clinton will pay his company but admitted he was surprised to see so many event production companies among the campaign’s creditors.

“Once I looked at those numbers, I realized how important to our economy nationally these elections are,” he said. “Just the sheer numbers listed there were immense.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

 

[hippie_hunter]

well when you go and put it like that... its definately easier to agree with you





someday, when we get serious about space travel... meet other species of life perhaps, our family will be a little more inclusive.

It's best to start here then, don't you think?

Huggsies t:

i know i know.

i just dont think its fair to label me as an arrogant canadian talking down to the american people because im not, like i said, ive made the US my home and i love this country too.

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

No huggsies for you

 

[The Chairman]

however i do think the american people will be making a mistake if they vote john mccain into the white house in november.

He's really no worse or better than the Democratic candidates. At this stage of the game, as I said in the other thread, all three have proved to be thus far, in some way or another, completely ineffectual in the long run. I don't see any great alteration occuring that will rectify the last eight years. I used to be a fervent Obama supporter, but the issues with his pastor have left me without a candidate.

 

[The Senator]

^
Campaigns do that all the time. As the first paragraph states, it allows them to free up funds for additional, critical moments in the campaign. It happens at the state and local level, in addition to the national level. When all is said and done, she'll have millions left over from her primary warchest, and will be able to pay them back as necessary.

 

[The Senator]

If Bush won the Electoral College and the Electoral College is what matters than Bush did not win by a mere technicality. He simply won.

Technically speaking, of course

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.


Myth: This race is tied.

No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.

Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.

There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.

Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!

Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?

Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.

This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.

Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!

Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.

Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.

That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.

Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.

There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.

Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.

Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.

Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.

Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.

Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.

Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?

Yes, and you should lie down, too.

 

[Malice]

PEOPLE LIKE HER!
MYTH! .... She is evil and should retire and new be seen on the planet again.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Um. Yay?

 

[Matt]

MYTH: Hillary Clinton eats babies.

Erm...actually, that's kinda true.

 

[SuperFerret]

MYTH: Hillary Clinton eats babies.

Erm...actually, that's kinda true.

I hear she actually lets them grow into toddlers first. More filling that way.

 

[Matt]

I hear she actually lets them grow into toddlers first. More filling that way.

I've heard that version too. Only in the version I heard she deprives them of light and doesn't let them move their muscles to make it soft. She calls it "Human veal."

 

[Excel]

What makes that post more than simply hilarious is that it's 110% true. The only people who will say its not are clintonites.

 

[The Senator]

Eight Myths Regarding Obama's Chances This Election Season

MYTH 1: He Wins States Traditionally Won by Republicans

Actually, this may be the biggest myth of the entire contest. While Hillary is having trouble besting McCain in states such as Oregon and Washington, she has a fifteen point lead in Arkansas and a six point lead in Ohio, according to polling from the Cook Political Report. Meanwhile, Obama not only loses Ohio and Missouri significantly to McCain, he fails to win Pennsylvania and Michigan. Sure, he wins one electoral vote in Nebraska, because the state splits its electoral votes by Congressional districts, but he fares worse when it comes to the electoral map than Clinton does. Now, I know what you're thinking: What about those states with significant African American populations? Well, Clinton and Obama are both trounced by McCain by a margin of twenty points or better in Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi. Sure, McCain only defeats Obama by 27 points, whereas Clinton is defeated by 29 in Alabama... but hey, who really pays attention after three or four points?

If the election were held today, McCain would have 328 electoral votes against Obama, whereas he would have 298 against Clinton. Both of them fail to win against him.

MYTH 2: Obama's Pastor Will Have No Effect on Him

Absolute lie. While only 39% of voters say that Wright will have an effect on their decision come this November, 35% percent of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio say that the Wright situation will have affect their decision come this November. Considering that doesn't account for the Republicans and independents, Obama may have a bit of a problem convincing people in those states that Wright was totally justified in saying what he said.

MYTH 3: There Doesn't Need to be a Re-vote in Michigan and Florida-- After all, Rules are Rules!

Again, not so. DNC rules say that states can hold re-votes if the results of their primary/ caucus are voided. Because Michigan and Florida's votes did not count when they first voted, both states have the ability to hold primaries before the convention in August. Each state would be perfectly justified to hold re-votes, assuming the state legislatures agree.

MYTH 4: Obama is Not Disenfranchising Voters in Michigan and Florida

Wrongaroo. Considering Michigan is considered a reliably Democratic state, it must be a shock to learn that 10% of Democratic voters will vote for McCain in the general election if their voices aren't heard. Again, that doesn't take into account the independents or Republican converts. Additionally, the amount of calls certain posters receive at their political-based jobs in which Florida and Michigan voters say they will vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted speaks volumes.

MYTH 5: Well, at Least Obama Isn't Dividing the Democratic Party as much as Hillary! If She Wins at the Convention, She'll Divide the Democrats!

Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...

MYTH 6: Hmmm. If that's the Case, then Obama should Pick Clinton as his Running Mate

Not a smart move. While there are no Obama/Clinton or Clinton/ Obama polls released, it can be reasonably assumed that the ticket would do no better against McCain than if either one them ran separately. This can be taken into account by looking at polls on a state-by-state basis. They each gain as many states as they take away from themselves, effectively canceling those states out and putting them in the same position as they would be in if they ran separately.

MYTH 7: Well, then Obama Should Be the Nominee. After all, He is Winning the Democratic Primary

That's not true-- He's Leading in the Democratic Primary. There are six states left, and if Hillary can at least make the gap narrow and prevent him from taking the 2025 delegates needed to become the Democratic nominee, she will have just as great a chance as Obama has when they go into the convention.

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)

 

[Gilpesh]

MYTH 8: Fine then! Obama can run as an Independent and beat both of them!

Not on your life. If Obama runs as an independent against Clinton and McCain, you'll effectively hand John McCain the election. In fact, that may murder the Democrats, giving McCain a 532-3 victory in the electoral college (DC won't go for McCain, so one of them will carry the city. A full 3 electoral votes, eh? Mondale did better than that...)

Sorry, but running as an independent after not getting the democratic nomination is more of a Hillary move.

 

[Excel]

jman...good effort

Oh man...some Clinton supporters just acting too much like their candidate; aint living in reality.

 

[The Senator]

Sorry, but running as an independent after not getting the democratic nomination is more of a Hillary move.

Which is exactly why the Democrats are trying to court her to run for Governor of New York in 2010. She'll have an option open if she loses to go somewhere Obama never went, so on the off chance she runs in 2012, she can point to her management skills as additional 'experience.'

 

[Excel]

Hillary is coming to my city at 11am today

Sucks

 

[Gilpesh]

Which is exactly why the Democrats are trying to court her to run for Governor of New York in 2010. She'll have an option open if she loses to go somewhere Obama never went, so on the off chance she runs in 2012, she can point to her management skills as additional 'experience.'

Which is exactly why she is hurting the democratic party more than Obama.

Does anyone really think Obama will go independent if he lost?

Cause I have air to sell to you.