Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar
The Inheritance

The Inheritance

By David E. Sanger
$17.79

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Clinton Rakes It In

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 1, 2007
Hillary Clinton
hillaryclinton.com

Hillary Clinton has easily set a fundraising record, pulling in $26 million between January and March. The Clinton campaign would not publicly say how much of the money it plans to save for the general election. A number of pundits have predicted this will be the most expensive election in American history.


AP via Yahoo!:

Clinton’s campaign manager, Patty Solis Doyle, told reporters she was “completely overwhelmed and grateful” by the support.

By not breaking down the amount available for the primaries, the Clinton camp made it impossible to make clear comparisons to past campaigns.

Most of the top tier candidates in the Republican and Democratic fields for 2008 are raising money for the primaries and the general election. The general election money can only be spent if the candidate wins the nomination.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Tanmack, April 2, 2007 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are so right, Ernest.  Clinton slashed anti-poverty programs knowing full well there weren’t jobs for those people, abandoning millions of children to homelessness and utter hardship. Aping the right to get elected, he moved the party to the center losing progressives, workers, etc., who went Green and voted for Nader. 

Her support of the war was tactical not true belief—Israeli aimed.  The donor list will bear that out.

After Bush, people won’t stand for the same type of politician.  Hillary will fizzle.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, April 2, 2007 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Referring to http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/clinton_rakes_it_in/#61767

Correction: Federal Minimum Wage in 1938 was 25-cents per hour. At 5.662% annual climb, it would be $12.32 today… my bad! But the point remains, campaigning for dollars does not serve the people.

Report this

By Louise, April 2, 2007 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pete:
Afternoon folks. This is Pete, and Repete here at ‘DC Upsand Downs’ bringing you the first race in a long series of races.

Repete:
Yep, things are really heating up here in the run for the ‘08 White House Cup’, but it’s still anybody’s race!

Pete:
I don’t know Repete, the odds favor Clinton.

Repete:
Folks, they are moving to the starting gate!

And their off!

Clinton takes the lead.
Moving up in the first turn is Dodd.
Clinton moves ahead.
Edwards coming up fast behind Dodd.
With Richardson close behind.
Bringing up the rear is Biden.

Folks, we have a Horse Race!

Pete:
Actually, this is the first workout.

Repete:
Right! It just looks like a horse race!

Pete:
Missing from the track are Obama and McCain.

Repete:
Actually, we’ve been notified there’ll be lot’s more entries at the starting gate for the qualifying run.
(Well actually, more like the second workout.)

Pete:
Hold your bets folks.
We just received word the ‘Dark Horse’ Kucinich was left off the list of entrants.

Repete:
Nobody seems to know much about Kucinich, but advance odds put him as a favorite with the crowds in the stands!

Pete:
We’ll be paying attention to how well this Dark Horse places at the end of the final qualifying run.

Repete:
Well I’m a gambling man, so I’ll put my money on Kucinich.
Coming from behind with ten to one odds promises a terrific payout!

Pete:
From the Stable, these latest qualifying numbers.
Clinton $36 million.
Edwards $14 million
Richardson $11 million
Dodd $16.5 million
Biden $4 million

Repete:
That’s $81.5 million Pete, is that the biggest purse ever?

Pete:
Uh no, actually that’s the ‘bid for the run’  fees ... so far.

Repete:
Wow, almost sounds like the ‘08 White House Cup’ is on the auction block!

Pete:
Yeh, weird huh?

Repete:
Yeh weird huh?

Report this

By Christopher Robin, April 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Have you ever noticed the most money often goes to the most bland candidates? With perhaps the exception of Reagan, who wasn’t bland, but had the finanical agenda?

Report this

By Lord B, April 2, 2007 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Money buys democracy. And the media gauge a candidate’s prospects for winning by how much money they raise. If money is the only rationale for evaluating a candidate’s chances for winning the Presidency then our country continues its slide into
anything BUT a democracy.

Hillary, you can go to hell.

Report this

By Lee, April 2, 2007 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not such a bad deal, we get two for the price of one.
Talk to the money!
We are doomed to Mediocrity and business as usual

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, April 2, 2007 at 10:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In 1924, the Calvin Coolidge campaign cost $4 million. In 2004, the George W. Bush campaign spent $367 million. This implies a 5.662% annual increase in presidential campaign spending.

To point out the absurdity of this increase, were the $1 per hour federal minimum wage established in 1938 to rise at this same rate, the federal minimum wage today would be $49.28 per hour.

Interestingly though, since 1974 the average home prices in the Pacific Northwest climbed at about this same rate, near 6%, from $30k to $200k. Gasoline prices have climbed from 45-cents to about $3 per gallon, the same rate. College tuition, many cars and more all rocketed in equivalent proportion - health care costs climbed even faster.

All wages float above the minimum wage. But just to keep up with these rising prices, the federal minimum wage should have grown from $2.10 per hour in 1974 to about $15 per hour today. Instead, that’s close to the average manufacturing wage.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, changes in the federal minimum wage from 1938 to 1968 jumped by a factor of 6.4. Meaning the 1976 minimum wage of $2.30 again should have been nearly $15 last year.

During the forty years from 1938 to 1978 the federal minimum wage climbed by a factor of 10.6 from 25-cents to $2.65. Meaning the late 1966 wage of $1.40, late last year should have paid almost $15 per hour.

Yes, campaign spending is ludicrous. But oppressed wages is the real evil here. With worker productivity up and two-thirds of the US economy being consumer-driven, imagine the bustling America if workers were paid even their historic worth; Social Security and Medicare could be made more secure from the additional tax revenue too. Instead, the upper-crust 300,000 citizens now earn nearly as much as the bottom 150-million according to the March 29, 2007, NYT article ‘Income Gap Is Widening Data Shows.’

“In Lincoln’s day, America was wrapped in whiteness. Today, it is wrapped in upper-crust entitle. It’s time to kill the greed and fill the need.”

Report this

By felicity, April 2, 2007 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I echo those here who want to know the sources of Hillary’s campaign contributions.

It’s predicted that a nominee for the presidency will spend $500 million on his/her campaign. If I had an outstanding debt of $500 million dollars I’d have to devote every waking - maybe sleeping - moment to pay off my creditors.  Can we assume that if the president, whoever it is, is a human being and lives on this planet he/she would have to do the same?  Likely, so the four or eight years the individual holds the office will be devoted to paying off his/her debts. 

What’s wrong with this picture. Everything if we expect a president to work for our interests and, more importantly, the interests of the nation.

Report this

By david simpson, April 2, 2007 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton is the same old wine in a slightly new bottle. Money & power for the sake of power - bad combination.

Report this

By George S Semsel, April 2, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The huge sums of money already being raised by one seen as just another loser Democrat tell us that what passes for elections in the USofA is little more than a peculiar form of auction in which only the rich can participate, but in which the highest bidder doesn’t necessarily win.

Report this

By Firebrand, April 2, 2007 at 5:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Time to form a third party

Report this

By Peter RV, April 2, 2007 at 4:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton is, whom are we kidding?, the perfect candidate of Jewish America so there is little doubt that she will be the Democratic candidate for Presidency.
The machine is repeating relentlesly the mantra of her intelligence (largely unproved unless confused with her ambitions), which in real money means she will pursue this bloody war in the Middle East until AIPAC is fully satisfied that Israel will rule there supreme. If our Nation collapses in the process, so be it.
Where is this going to lead the U.S. doesn’t seem to be her concern.
Well folks, if we get Hillary it serves us damn right.

Report this

By John Lowell, April 2, 2007 at 1:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Its become more and more clear: Clinton is likely to win the Democratic nomination and, possibly, the presidency. The Obama and Edwards candidacies serve only to work against one another but not against Clinton’s. If she is to be stopped, one or other of them will have to drop out which is very unlikey. Of the three or four principal candidates in the race, none could be more contemptible than Clinton, although all are most unqualifiedly contemptible. I have not voted since 1992 so awful have I considered the choices but I’d think about coming out of retirement should this paramecium appear to have a leg up on things.

John Lowell

Report this

By Druthers, April 2, 2007 at 1:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The really interesting thing to know would be who the money came from.  How much from AIPAC to each canditate? How much from the arms industry?
Much of it will go to the media for usual smiles and promises, then a big chunk to the “consultants.” 
Hillary is the war canditate so she gets the biggest tidbit, unless Obama gets ahead in the polls.
Just follow the money trail.

Report this

By Tanmack, April 1, 2007 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who is giving all this money, and why?  And how is she using it?  To buy support, as she did in South Carolina, employing a african-american state senator for $10,000 a month to do pr work—like trying to get obama uninvited from a speech before the South Carolina Black Political Caucus. For shame.

Report this

By Ernest Canning, April 1, 2007 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Comment #61640 by Margaret Currey.  Before you coronate Mrs. Clinton, adding a crown of superlatives—e.g., “very smart woman;” “make a good president,” presumptive nominee, take a moment to actually “think” about where this woman stands on issues of importance to the vast majority of Americans.

In the midst of a global class war, ask yourself why it is that all that money is flowing to the spouse of a former President who joined with Reagan and Bush in betraying the middle and working classes as NAFTA and the WTO opened the door to the flight of America’s manufacturing base as it departed in search of cheap foreign labor, leaving what remained of American labor to be Wal-Mart-ized?  Could it be that, when it comes to the great class divide, Hillary stands with the rich and the powerful?  Could it be that the subsidies she is proposing for health care insurers as part of her so-called “universal health care” plan is intended to benefit insurance company CEOs—that this is the real reason she will not back the Conyers-Kucinich single-payer plan that would eliminate the insurance company middle man profits that account for 1/3 of the cost of health care?

Tell me something, Margaret, what good does Hillary’s intellect do for any of us if she is prepared to betray us?

Report this

By Jonas South, April 1, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary has the Midas touch. Public records show that she invested $1000 with a man who had business pending before her husband, then the governor of Arkansas, and the guy promptly produced a $90,000 ‘profit’. If you ever achieved such a rate of return (9000%) on your own investments, or if you are naïve enough to think it possible, then go jump from the fat into the fire, and vote for this ethically challenged lady.

Report this

By Skruff, April 1, 2007 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why wouldn’t she raise lots of bongo-bucks. She’s the hidden candidate of the monied interests. 

We are in the midst of yet another major shift in politics… While the Repubblicans spend monet which won’t be made until the next century, the D’s are seriptiously becoming the party of “fical conservatives.” Solomon Brothers (the one Wall Street firm that backed the first Bill Clinton run predicts that if Hill-the-shill is elected she will cut fat flesh and bone from the federal budget in an attempt to “balance” it as her hubby alledgedly did…. But where will this self proclaimed “hawk’s” axe fall…. Bet it’s not at defense!!

Report this

By Margaret Currey, April 1, 2007 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hiliary will run and be nominiated this is according to Charlie Rangel, who says she is smart and would make a good president.

Now the rest of American needs to know this is a very smart women, those who say she is for the war and then is against the war is o.k. War has a funny habit of not being perdictable and to be for war when the country is winning is one thing but after a while when there is no clear victory then it is time to get out, hopefully the Iraqui people will be able to lead their own country, no other country can do it for then because then the country will become a colony.

Margaret from Vancouver, Washington

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.