One thing people don't understand and try to use against Hillary only makes them look like fools.

[William769]

People are screaming bloody murder that Hillary has set up a campaign that will raise a ton of money. I am not going to dispute that in the least (superpacs? All the better!). It's going to take a ton of money to beat the Republicans and if a candidate ain't got the money, that candidate is NOT going to the White House. Plain and simple.

I am very proud that Hillary has set up a campaign that's in it for the long haul and actually has her eye on the White House. I don't want a damn candidate that thinks he/she can do it without the money, that's just plain ignorant.

In the end what matters most is keeping the Republicans out of the White and we have some great candidates up to the job except for one but Hillary is leading the pack not only with the money but the experience and a campaign that can beat the republicans and that's what matters.

And yes the subject of money has seen the light of day in the Hillary Clinton Group.

GO TEAM HILLARY!

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[still_one]

2. It is unfortunate, but the reality today is that it takes a lot of money to run and win elections

[Dustlawyer]

25. That's right, it's unfortunate that it takes money, mainly from very wealthy individuals and

corporations who expect a quid pro quo for it. That's why we should never try to change this "unfortunate" circumstance because to do so would mean that you had to have the support of millions of people. Besides, I am sure the wealthy donors won't mind Hillary throwing us a few bones on social issues as long as she protects Wall Street, Big Pharma, MIC, Insurance companies and oil companies. It's just how it is!

Why should Hillary not collect millions and millions of dollars from all of her wealthy friends she has known for the last 30-40 years? Using her name recognition, which almost everyone in the world knows of her, to campaign without accepting donations from industrialists who expect favors would still be risky. I mean she still would have the clout to be interviewed by anyone she chose at anytime she wanted, as well as millions of supporters who would still send quite a bit of money, but why take the chance? Americans have gotten used to the Plutocrats calling the shots, so why not. Being their puppet POTUS still has its perks right?

[still_one]

29. You realize this is the Hillary group don't you? Take your sweeping generalizations and

distortions elsewhere.

[George II]

34. She can't collect more than $2700 from any of her "wealthy friends"!

[hrmjustin]

3. When i read posts here saying we don't need money i just say they are so naive.

[yallerdawg]

9. We didn't want this!

They made it the law of the land, greed is good, trickle down, protected speech and all...

[sheshe2]

4. KnR!

[yallerdawg]

5. Look at the Republicans.

Just ten will make the debate stage. Top ten based on an average of national polling. How do you drive up your national numbers to make the debate if you don't have the money to get your name out there - everywhere?

And if any Republicans have the money to do that, Democrats better go toe to toe, or they'll get left in the dirt come general election.

Welcome to the Big Leagues!

[Thinkingabout]

6. It cost lots of money to run a campaign and in thr case of president they have to run in the

Primaries and then in the general election. Elizabeth Warren spent $42 million running for Senator in one state and in the presidential run it will be fifty states. Jeb already has $1 million and we will need somewhere like a billion just to stay in the race.

[Metric System]

7. She has been criticized for everything that makes her a strong General Election candidate. How in

the hell are we going to keep the White House if we can't compete nationally? It takes money to do that, like it or not.

[Little Star]

8. Nicely said & the absolute truth too! k&r

[SunSeeker]

10. Exactly. Disarmament is good. But not unilateral disarmament.

Until we overturn Citizens United and have publicly funded elections, this is the game we must play on the national level. Sometimes local elections can be done without much money, like say, Mayor of Vermont. Then you can use that name recognition to become Senator of your small state (if there's not too much competition). But when talking presidential runs, it just makes no sense to go in unarmed. I think we are really lucky that there is a progressive candidates out there, namely Hillary Clinton, that is able to raise money well enough to stand a chance against the Republican money machine.

[hrmjustin]

12. This is the Hillary Clinton room.

[OKNancy]

13. what. I don't understand this post

How did Liz Warren get interjected in this thread?

[OKNancy]

14. It it the height of political naivete to think that money is not important

Unfortunately we have to put up with it because that is REALITY.

And... if money is speech, then I am saying with my donations, " I approve and support you"

[Iliyah]

15. I'm pretty sure that the GOPs will raise and spend over 1 billion

[passiveporcupine]

16. I would just like to say thank you

to those posters who did not try to insult or impugn Bernie supporters, while discussing this "tactic" of winning or losing an election. You have a valid point. Maybe not correct, but worthy of consideration.

makes them look like fools
that's just plain ignorant
i just say they are so naive.

Bernie supporters are NOT your enemy.

Thanks!

[OKNancy]

17. probably not a good idea to come in our group

and give us a lecture. No matter how civil it seems to be.

I suggest you say the same to the Bernie crowd. Hillary supporters are not your enemy.

[hrmjustin]

18. .

[passiveporcupine]

22. I am an equal opportunity lecturer

I didn't mean it as a lecture, but as an actual thank you that some of you did not respond in kind to the way the OP was presented.

We all need to work together, even if we support different candidates. We all have valid reasons for our support. I've seen a lot of insults lately, and will probably be speaking up more often. It just isn't necessary. From either side. All it does is escalate the feelings for everyone, and it's a shame to have to come to DU to feel attacked by other dems.

I don't seek out any group. I only read what hits the front page, so I don't go looking for posters to "lecture".

[sheshe2]

27. So.

So you have a problem with the OP? Really? I don't. You came into our group to lecture us, yes you did.

We need to work together? Tell that to your friends that come here and alert stalk us.

I didn't mean it as a lecture, but as an actual thank you that some of you did not respond in kind to the way the OP was presented.

We all need to work together, even if we support different candidates. We all have valid reasons for our support. I've seen a lot of insults lately, and will probably be speaking up more often.

Bye. Glad you are gone from here.

[SunSeeker]

19. Please don't come here to lecture HRC supporters.

We've been called every name in the book by Bernie supporters. We've been alert stalked.

Please respect our group.

[passiveporcupine]

23. I do respect your group

and insults from the Bernie group are just as inappropriate.

[SunSeeker]

24. No, coming here to imply we are mistreating Bernie supporters is disrespecting the group.

The OP does not mention Bernie Sanders nor Bernie Sanders supporters. And yet, you couldn't "just" leave it as a "thank you," despite your headline's promise to the contrary. No, you had to throw this in at the end:

Bernie supporters are NOT your enemy.

You just had to scream out that "not" in all caps too, apparently because we have reading comprehension issues, amiright?

[hrmjustin]

20. Your lecture is not appropriate.

[William769]

21. Did I say those were Bernie supporters?

If I did please show me where. Now on the other hand if people have a guilty conscious, I have no control over that.

[Colorado Liberal]

26. Spare me

I'm supposed to believe that you weren't referring to them. Please. (And it's "conscience&quot

[NBachers]

30. Of course Bernie supporters are not the enemy. I'll be ecstatic with either one of 'em.

[MADem]

28. Not just money....they don't "get" that candidates need superdelegates, either.

This whole "Waaah, he's a Man of the People!!! Don't need no stinking ENDORSEMENTS!!!" braggadoccio that keeps popping up is nothing short of ... well .... HILL-arious!!

They don't understand that every governor, every member of Congress, and a lot of other key movers and shakers GET A VOTE at the convention--and when they endorse a candidate, that is GOOD for the candidate!

[Cha]

31. Money is A Good Thing.. We'll need it to fight the $$$$$Billion or more.. GOPropaganda Machine!

$$$$$ to Fight the Lying Idiots like trumpncruz et al.

Mahalo William

[BooScout]

32. In a more perfect world...

...We would have a campaign season of about 6 weeks in length. In that time we would have ample opportunity to learn about the candidates and their position on the issues and be able to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, America's campaign 'season' has grown until it is essentially never ending at this point. I would love to see time limit restrictions and spending restrictions put on the campaigning, but sadly think it will never happen in America.

We have to work with what we are given and to win the White House, it takes a lot of money and a lot of organization. The Hillary campaign has got what it takes to get us there.

Folks can criticize the system, but to criticize the candidate for being the best prepared to maneuver through the system shows ignorance of what the reality of the system actually is.

[ismnotwasm]

33. Fools is the polite word.

[okasha]

35. We all expect a quid pro quo for our donations,

whether they're for $2700 or $27. Here's what I want in return for my $27:

1. Supreme Court justices who will uphold voting, reproductive, marriage and employment rights;

2. An end to offshoring and corporate welfare;

3. Clean, sustainable and cheap energy;

4. A restructuring of the tax code so that the owners of 80% of the country's wealth pay 80% of the taxes.

5. Strict protection of wild lands, wetlands, and vulnerable species.

And that's just for the first $27. I have a whole other list for the second contribution.