"Big-Foot" Hillary "Setting $1 million Goal for Donors." Ten times goal of Bush's Pioneers.

[flpoljunkie]

Obscene is the word that comes to mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/politics/02democrats.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

February 2, 2007

Clinton Setting a $1 Million Goal for Donors

By PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is establishing record-setting goals for presidential campaign fund-raising, her advisers say, asking donors to raise at least $1 million for the honor of being in her top echelon of supporters.

That million-dollar benchmark is 10 times the amount that President Bush’s “Pioneers” were expected to raise in his 2000 race; at that time, the Pioneers’ $100,000 goal was considered sizable.

Clinton advisers said the new fund-raising levels, laid out in meetings of finance team members this week, would help achieve their goal of raising $75 million in 2007. At least $15 million is expected from New York, Mrs. Clinton’s home base, the advisers said.

Precise fund-raising goals and numbers of donors are not yet known by the campaign, with the major meeting of the finance team planned for next Wednesday.

Several Clinton fund-raisers said in interviews that they expected dozens of donors to reach the tier of $500,000 — in part because of the star power at their disposal. The campaign has lined up surrogates for Mrs. Clinton at Democratic fund-raisers around the country; among them are former President Bill Clinton and a senior campaign adviser, Ann Lewis.

“It will be almost impossible for any other candidate to raise the money that the Clintons can raise,” said John Catsimatidis, a New York fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.

The names for each category are under discussion, advisers said, but designations like “Hillraisers” and “Pathfinders” have been proposed.

more...

[meegbear]

1. "Big-Foot" Hillary?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Yeah

that's a head-scratcher.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Yes. Telling donors not to give to others and setting goal of $1 million for "hillraisers."

Exceedingly heavy-handed!

[MonkeyFunk]

9. well you support

a warm, fuzzy candidate who wants to share his money with his opponents.

Geez, what a silly complaint.

[OKNancy]

3. Well, she said she planned on winning

and she said she knew how to win. It sucks, but you need bucks.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

4. impressive nt

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Good for her

only an idiot would aim low. Sounds like she knows what it takes to win.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

6. exactly

if you're not aiming for the stars, you'll never reach it.

[bigdarryl]

8. sounds like she's brought and paid for

[rinsd]

25. Lot of that going around these days (nt)

[wyldwolf]

10. YES! She's showing the GOP she will not be intimidated!

[flpoljunkie]

11. No, she's saying the nomination is hers to her fellow Dem candidates.

NOT! BACKING! HILLARY!

[wyldwolf]

12. yeah! That, too. I guess your guy needs to get cracking, huh?

[MonkeyFunk]

14. exactly!

running a good, strong campaign is not a flaw - it's a positive!

If another candidate beat Clinton in the primaries, why should we think they could beat the Republican in the general? If Hillary's as weak as people here say, then it should be easy for somebody to defeat her.

And it's quite possible that someone will! But I don't think attacking her for running a strong campaign makes much sense.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Have not yet decided whom I will support, but it won't be Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

19. Me, neither. But it could be Hillary

[Hippo_Tron]

30. That's a bit of a ridiculous attack

Money is a huge part of the primary process and Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with making things that way. George W Bush is actually largely the reason we have this system. He was the first candidate to reject federal matching funds in the primaries which started the precedent that any viable candidate will do the same. Furthermore because of front loaded primaries, it's more expensive to campaign than it used to be.

Say what you want about Hillary, but this system of ungodly amounts of money in presidential primaries started two election cycles before she decided to run.

[nodular]

43. You are correct about the front-loaded primaries making it more expensive to run.

Unfortunately, front-loaded primaries represent a degradation of democracy in every way, in my opinion. Being an older guy, I remember the many primaries through the years fairly well (though I am no expert). The old primary system served as a test of the candidates. They had to be tough and they had the keep interacting with people over a period of time, while we all got to watch. The whole process stripped away some of the "cover" provided by the image makers. The system was far from perfect but I am sorry that it has fallen apart.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. The fact that you need to raise this much money to run for President is absurd

Bill Clinton would never have gotten the nomination if this kind of fundraising was required back in 1992. That being said I can't exactly blame Hillary for doing what the system demands.

[wyldwolf]

15. Do people here hate the system or Hillary? Gotta wonder if Kucinich was raising it...

...how loud the "cheers" would be right now.

[SaveElmer]

20. Seems alot on DU believe in unilateral disarmament...

Or, as you say, only when it comes to Hillary!!!

[flpoljunkie]

22. This is what they always say when they go outside the public financing system. Hogwash!

This is no way to run a democracy--of by and for the people.

[SaveElmer]

23. As long as this is the system...

We need to use it to win...does no good playing the martyr...when th other side could give a rats ass

[flpoljunkie]

24. Then we need to change it now. Durbin is introducing a bill, but will the Dem leadership support it?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002312.php

Top Dem Wants Public Campaign Financing

By Paul Kiel - January 9, 2007, 5:07 PM

We all knew this was supposed to be a new era of government with the Democratic majority blah blah blah. But public financing for elections? Really?

On the Senate floor today, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), while speaking about the Dems' ethics package, said that the next logical step is public financing, and that he would be introducing such a bill in a matter of weeks. (We're still trying to get a record of Durbin's exact remarks.)

Although the details of the legislation are still being pounded out, David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund said that Durbin's bill would probably be modeled on the Arizona and Maine laws "which are working very well." In Maine, candidates who participate in the program have to begin by demonstrating community support by "collecting a minimum number of $5 checks or money orders payable to the Maine Clean Election Fund (qualifying contributions). After a candidate begins to receive MCEA funds from the State, he or she cannot accept private contributions," according to the Maine Ethics Commission.

This the sort of thing that often gets laughed off as pie-in-the-sky legislating. But with the Senate's #2 pushing for it, might the story be different this time around?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Two issues

Are there 60 votes in the Senate to support such a bill?

And, it refers to "candidates who participate in the program". Well, the Republicans would NOT participate in such a program, because they can raise more money outside such a program.

It would be stupid for a Democrat to hog-tie him or herself while the Republican gets to raise all the money he wants.

[flpoljunkie]

32. That's what those willing to take the big bucks from special interests always say-D's and R's alike!

[MonkeyFunk]

33. I'm confused

I thought it was the Naderite wing that says D's and R's are alike. Now you're saying it's the well-funded candidates?

Separately, do you think it would be wise for a Dem candidate to accept public funding as a nice gesture, knowing that they would then be heavily outspent?

[flpoljunkie]

34. Confused? Like I said, this is the excuse those bankrolled by the special intersts always give.

No reason the Democrats cannot pass public financing of campaigns, but will they?

[MonkeyFunk]

35. You haven't cleared up the confusion

WHO says the two parties are alike? You claimed above it was the big-money corporatists. That seems odd to me.


Now, as to my other question, would you answer it? In your opinion, should a Dem candidate accept public funding knowing his or her opponent would be able to raise and spend vastly greater amounts? Is the gesture worth that disparity?

[flpoljunkie]

36. You need to read and understand what I wrote, Monkey. Perhaps then you might understand.

We need to take back our democracy from the special interests, and we cannot do that when both parties are beholden to the special interests, i.e., banks, Wall Street, credit card companies.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. I see

you're not going to clarify your statement above, OR answer the question.

But I'll give you one last shot, so others reading this can see that you refuse to answer:

Do you believe it would be wise for a Democratic candidate to accept public funding, knowing that his or her opponent would not, and thereby raise and spend vastly greater amounts of money?

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Yep...

refused to answer.

It's fine to advocate certain things, and it's good to feel strongly about them. But when the rubber hits the road, real decisions have to be made.

It would be the height of idiocy to go into a boxing ring wearing gloves while you allow your opponent to wear brass knuckles, no matter how strongly one feels about the need for gloves in boxing.

[SaveElmer]

28. Great, I'm all for it...but until then...

Full speed ahead as far as I am concerned.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. The system DOES suck

undoubtedly! But those are the rules of the game we're in, and it would be folly not to play it the best one can.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Obama and Edwards are also going to raise a ton of money

The same will be true of Gore if he enters the race. Hillary has the greatest potential for fundraising by far but that doesn't mean that she's the only one who is raising far more money than should be necessary to run for President. When her husband ran candidates actually accepted matching funds in the primaries and that drastically greatly leveled the playing field.

And I can't speak for people here, only for myself.

[zulchzulu]

16. Campaign finance reform? BWAHAHAHAHA!

[ProSense]

17. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[oasis]

42. Do you remember Russ Feingold's lastest campaign for his senate seat?

He almost lost because he insisted on running on a shoestring budget.

Hillary's vow:"I'm in it to win it". If she doesn't try her best to win, why should we trust her about anything else?

[frylock]

29. i'm sure that there's plenty of pioneers at aipac she can hit up for that kind of cheddar

[Alhena]

31. I don't like her, but she's got the poll numbers ...

so I grudgingly give respect to Hillary. She's at around 40% to my man Obama's 20%. So since she's likely going to be the nominee, she might as well raise a lot of money. I will of course vote for her in the general election.

[snowbear]

38. You can respect her without giving her your support in the primaries..

I wouldn't put any stake in what the MSM is pushing in the polls. Who knows who's responding to those polls anyway. And this early on - a good deal of people are likley responding by name recognition alone. Most Americans aren't paying attention at this point.

Heck! We haven't even had one single debate yet!

Remember the polls in 2004? If you judged the early polls of 2004, Governor Dean had the nomination in the bag.

As they say here in Alaska, the early lead dog never wins the Iditarod.




But wow.. 28 straigh years of Bush > Clinton > Bush > Clinton? I don't think so.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Doubting polls

is just silly.

There's no evidence that they're cooked - in fact, it's counter-intuitive. The polling companies are in the business of selling accuracy.

Now, that doesn't mean the polls today show what will happen 20 months from now - they reflect how people feel TODAY. And TODAY, Clinton is the frontrunner.

[snowbear]

40. As of today... (per the MSM)... you are correct-a-mundo!

With the exception of Iowa of course.

And thankfully ~~ the polls of February 2md, 2007 will look absolutely nothing like the polls of say... May 01, 2007...

THANKFULLY!!!

[fuzzyball]

41. Official Candidates get to KEEP excess campaign contributions

indefinitely.....for the NEXT campaign. So HRC could end up
with millions of unspent $$$$$$, the same as JF Kerry did after 2004.