“I Hate Saying This”

1. On January 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 am Sheldon Haynie Says:

   the more candidates that the left has contending, the more dilution and wounding they will cause. Bring it on, she is contentious and snide and abrasive. That may play well in NYC, but not so much elsewhere.

2. On January 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 am Veeshir Says:

   I’m a Clinton hater from way back so take this for what it’s worth, but I disagree with your “Good for her”.

   These days, it costs far too much money to be a serious candidate. The only ones who accept matching funds are the ones who just want to run for President, not for ones who actually think they have a chance.
   Reverand Al will accept matching funds. Count on it.
   Bush didn’t accept matching funds. Why? Because he’s fiscally conservative?
   (sorry, I just like to make myself laugh)
   No, because he can raise far more money without matching funds.

3. On January 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 am Bitter Says:

   I’m aware of why no one takes it if they are a serious candidate. But, by your argument, Veeshir, then I still shouldn’t appreciate it when they don’t take public dollars to pay for their campaings?

   That’s like saying that just because I disagree with someone on all the other issues, I should never give them credit when they vote pro-gun.

   Not supporting a system that is a tool by those wanting to eventually convert to mandatory public financing for all campaigns is worth giving kudos to, in my opinion. It may be because she’s a serious candidate, as long as it’s a move in the direction I like (refusing to take the money, not her candidacy), I’m not going to hate her for it.

4. On January 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm Mark Says:

   This strategy is going to be interesting. If I remember correctly, Hillary’s campaign spent like drunken sailors during her Senate campaign – and much of it was wasted on non-essential things (catering, etc.).

   Now, if she ends up having to spend a ton of money on the primary race to fight off Obama and the others, and she is successful in doing so, is she going to have enough left to spend in the general election – especially if it is closer than expected – since she is not going to be able to raise much else?

   A scenario that could happen is that Hillary spends a fortune on the primary and dips in to funds she planned to set aside for the general election. Her campaign could assume that the DNC could make up the difference and spend on her behalf running the DNC generic ads. But, if the DNC does this, then the amount of money to pour into contested House and Senate races lessens.

5. On January 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm Ed Says:

   I expect her to try and use a lawyer to get public money DESPITE of this.

6. On January 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm Alcibiades Says:

   This might actually be a good election cycle for an idependent candidate to get involved. If they ran on a heavy anti-illegal immigration platform, they could cause quite a stir.

   Of couse, they’d need as much money as Ross Perot to even stand a chance…

7. On January 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pm Bitter Says:

   Alcibiades,

   I fear our independent candidate this time around may be Bloomberg. Lord save us.

8. On January 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm Mark Says:

   Alcibiades,

   Mayor Bloomberg is considering an independent run, and I am sure that the thought of a President Bloomberg brings out the joy-joy feelings of this site’s readership.

9. On January 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm Mark Says:

   Bitter – I posted that before I saw your response.