4 State Parties Sign Fund-Raising Pacts With Clinton Campaign

[think]

4 State Parties Sign Fund-Raising Pacts With Clinton Campaign

By Maggie Haberman - August 25th 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has received commitments from four Democratic state parties, including in the crucial proving ground of New Hampshire, to enter joint fund-raising agreements with the campaign just as the nomination battle is beginning.

The four are a small fraction of the dozens of state parties that the Hillary for America campaign has asked to join such agreements. Many are still considering the request; some officials said they are working through how the arrangement would be put into effect while the nominating fight is underway.

Mississippi, Virginia and Wisconsin have also signed agreements with the Clinton team, according to two people briefed on the issue who were not authorized to speak publicly. Virginia, a critical general election battleground, is home to Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton’s and a former Democratic National Committee chairman.

The move to create the “Victory Funds” – in which the money raised would be divided between the state parties and the Clinton campaign – comes as efforts to form a joint fund-raising agreement with the Democratic National Committee have repeatedly hit snags over concerns in the Clinton campaign about the current party leadership’s controlling the money in any shared account. The national committee, which is intended to remain neutral, has been accused by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals for the nomination of taking actions that could benefit Mrs. Clinton, such as restricting the number of debates.

~snip~

New Hampshire’s participation in the arrangement could also raise questions for the party: The state party’s chairman, Raymond Buckley, is a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The agreements have been reached just ahead of the D.N.C.’s meeting at the end of this week in Minnesota, where the candidates will attend and address party officials....

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/25/4-state-parties-sign-victory-fund-pacts-with-clinton-campaign/?_r=0

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. WTF??

[elleng]

4. Ditto, wtf.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. If my state party pulls something like that,

they will hear from me and a lot of other people. That's bullshit!

[elleng]

9. It is indeed bullshit,

and 'in your face' bullshit. New Hamphire? Where we're breaking our backs for 'our' candidates!!!

https://politics.concordmonitor.com/2015/08/gov-federal/chafee-clinton-omalley-sanders-confirmed-for-nhdp-convention-webb-still-weighing-plans-to-attend/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/25/omalley-is-the-dnc-too-poor-to-have-more-than-one-debate-in-iowa-and-one-debate-in-new-hampshire-before-the-primary-video/

[MaggieD]

17. If I was a Dem party leader....

I'd say it's because I support Democrats. I wouldn't break my back for an Independent that has heaped scorn on my party for decades. But that's just me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. "Caucusing with" =/- "heaping scorn on."

But that's just me.

[short circuit]

22. MaggieD apparently thinks I is a party...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. It would appear that way.

"Independent" is not a party. And for 40 years Bernie has represented the supposed principles of the Democratic party better than a lot of Democrats.

[short circuit]

34. Indeed, he holds the true Democratic values

while others are selling bullshit painted over and presented as "values".

[MaggieD]

71. Lots of candidates do

Doesn't mean they would all make a good president.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

77. Maybe the people should decide that in the primary process

instead of leaving it to the establishment party hacks to decide with money.

[MaggieD]

78. Why do you call them "party hacks"

Their whole purpose is to organize in states to elect Democrats. You object to that?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

84. Because that's what they are.

They're the establishment folks whose goal is to maintain the status quo, and they do it by using their power and the money-raising machinery of the party to promote the candidate of their choice. Look up how Warren G. Harding got nominated. When the party gives an unfair advantage to a certain candidate they are doing great harm to the democratic process - our primaries, as flawed as they are, exist precisely because nobody wants a Harding-style nomination process.

[passiveporcupine]

99. I object to them stealing the primary election

by choosing who the primary winner is before the people get to vote, or even hear the candidates in a debate.

But somehow, this doesn't surprise me a bit...it's the kind of campaign Hillary ran in 2008 too. Anything to win.

[Cha]

130. Because that's all they know.. are insults in Bernie's name.

[JDPriestly]

100. But Bernie would make a good president.

The nerve of Hillary to co-opt state Democratic Party funds when she has so much money already. It looks greedy and sick. It does not demonstrate a democratic spirit. And what's more it shows only contempt for the voters.

It is as if she is saying to us that the primaries are just a formality, a petty ritual of no importance. It's insulting. .

Once again, Hillary is insulting us voters. What a bull in a china cabinet she is. Very awkward.

She has already spent over a million dollars on polling, and she wants to empty the state Democratic Party coffers. That looks really bad for Hillary, really bad.

[MaggieD]

101. I couldn't disagree more strongly

On every count.

[dreamnightwind]

104. +1

[Cal33]

120. Does this mean you don't believe that the Establishment Democrats are doing

what they can to favor the election of Third-Way Democrats over the Progressives?

If so, I think you are wrong. I have practically stopped donations to Establishment
Democrats, but I continue making donations to the individual politicians I'd like to
see elected -- which is the way it should be.

[MaggieD]

121. I know they aren't.

The mantra is the most liberal that can get elected. Always has been; always will be. The party leaders focus on winning a majority. Because without the majority in a legislative body you're pretty much just keeping the seat warm most of the time.

The thing people forget is that most areas of the country are not flaming liberal. The real world is not like DU.

[Cal33]

122. It's the Establishment Democrats that began to accommodate the evils of the Corporate

Republican Establishment. If they had been steady in the values of the Democrats, they
wouldn't have shifted so much to the right.

I think Bernie saw this shift to the right even 40 years ago, and he wanted no part of it
then, nor does he want any part of it now. But a decent man he is, decent enough not
to run on a Third Party, because it would split the Democratic Party altogether. That's
one of the main reasons why he is running as a Democrat.

It's the Establishment people who have abandoned the earlier Democratic principles.
Bernie is still sticking by them.

And you are right. I've noticed that there probably is a higher percentage of Liberals at
DU than in the world outside. I think this is because of lack of knowledge. Bernie is
simply telling America what the issues are, and how he will fix the erroneous ones that
need fixing -- and his rise in popularity is simply astonishing. The American people are
being told the truth by him, and they are responding! Organizations like Fox News are
responsible for the misinformation and disinformation that are keeping Americans
dumbed down, so that they could be more easily fooled.

Bernie is doing the opposite. He is telling the people the truth. There are still 14 months
to go before Nov. 2016. That is quite a bit of time to have more people informed with
the truth. Right now many people haven't even heard of him. Those 14 months are
coming in handy. Things will be quite different long before the end of that time.

I am a Liberal, but not an extremist. I would vote for Hillary in the General Election,
should she win the Democratic Primaries. I think extremists do more harm than good --
especially for their own cause.

[MaggieD]

123. I can appreciate your opinion on that

I would not say the DNC is blameless, but I think for the most part they get a bad rap simply for dealing with the political realities in many districts/ races.

I think people fail to understand that the DNCs main job is to elect enough Dems to get a majority. Without the majority we have no control over the legislative agenda, and Dem bills cannot even get a hearing in congress. The DNC does not have the luxury of running purity contests. It's all about electability.

I agree with that strategy. Warm fuzzies at the voting booth don't help people in the real world. I realize not everyone agrees with me on that, and that is okay with me.

I agree that often the extremist wing of the party does more harm than good. In my younger days I worked with extremists in Seattle (we have plenty of them), and have seen the "more harm than good" up close and personal in my state - mostly blue, with many pockets of moderates that are a huge voting block here.

I, personally, have always voted for the most liberal, yet electable candidate, in any given race. Sometimes holding my nose as I do, but with an eye toward winning the majority. That is the only way you get any real political power in a two party (non-parliamentary) system of government.

[MaggieD]

24. His call for a primary on Obama

.... And many of his derogatory comments about other Dems over the years isn't helping him now. IMO.

[short circuit]

27. Did you even bother reading Sanders' explanation for the primary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/bernie-sanders-obama-primary_n_837819.html

He wanted the primary to happen so debates could occur to understand the left, and make Obama a stronger nominee.

[MaggieD]

35. Yes

I read it. It did not sway me.

[short circuit]

36. Oh, and please provide evidence that Bernie has made derogatory remarks against other Dems n/t

[MaggieD]

48. Here you go....

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181.html#.Vd1BNcRHaK0

[short circuit]

57. Nowhere in that article did I see anything that disparages Democrats.

He's trying to get the Democrats to follow the platform, not sell out to the Republicans.

If you don't get that, then I feel sorry for you, and will end my discussion on this subthread here.

[JDPriestly]

102. The article misrepresents the facts.

As Bernie has explained, voters do not register for a party in Vermont.

He has supported Democrats in their campaigns for office. That includes Patrick Leahy and other Democrats.

He caucuses with Democrats.

He will not run a third party campaign if he does not win the Democratic nomination.

This issue has been discussed quite a bit and for many months on DU. It is a non-issue.

Bernie has a lot of friends in the Democratic Party.

I for one have been very active in my local Democratic Club and will be again this year.

So this is a non-issue.

[DanTex]

107. In that case, how is Leahy is Democrat and Bernie is not?

The reason is that Bernie made the very conscious decision to run as an independent and not a Democrat for his entire career until this election.

“In real terms,” he told a reporter doing an interview for Playboy, “what the Democratic campaign program is about is: We’re pretty bad, but they’re worse, vote for us. That’s true: We’re pretty bad, but the Republicans are worse, and that’s the reason you should vote for Democrats.”

“I am not a Democrat,” he told the Progressive, “because the Democratic Party does not represent, and has not for many years, the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people and low-income people.”

Sanders didn’t say those things in the ’70s or the ’80s. He said those things not even two years ago.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181_Page2.html#ixzz3juYIUCaO

If you're going to be saying things like that about the party you want to represent as president, you're going to get some deserved push-back.

[elleng]

32. I understand that and

it is an issue for the Sanders campaign, imo, but I support MARTIN O'Malley, and I think it's unconscionable.

[MaggieD]

37. MOM can make the same agreement with them

[elleng]

41. Sure, the state parties will raise funds for him as vigorously as for hrc

and share. I DOUBT it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. Hillary is the establishment candidate.

Neither O'Malley nor Sanders have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any help from the party at either the national or state levels.

[elleng]

46. Exactly,

so such agreements at this point, while non-establishment candidates are fighting our way up, should NOT occur.

[MaggieD]

50. For good reason

She is far and away the most qualified in the field, and she beats every rethug in polling. And she's actually a Democrat.

[elleng]

53. Martin O'Malley has been a Democrat for his entire adult life

and does NOT owe his position to corporate power.

[MaggieD]

56. What position is that?

Are you blaming Hillary because he polls low?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. No question she's qualified.

But O'Malley is a Democrat, and Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats and has faithfully represented the party's principles for his entire career in public office (which is longer than Hillary's). None of this is relevant to the point at hand. The point is that there is a reason for primaries, and for the party establishment hacks to pre-choose any candidate gives an unfair advantage to that candidate. Kind of like the old smoke-filled rooms of years ago where the party hacks chose the candidate, the people be damned.

[JDPriestly]

103. Sometimes being the establishment candidate is a good thing.

But this year I'm not so sure. Look at how Trump is out-polling the other Republican candidates. Trump is anything but the establishment candidate.

The one certainty is change.

So, although Hillary supporters want to make us think that the primary is over and Hillary has won, that is simply and clearly untrue. It is a lie.

Hillary has not won the nomination until the votes are in. Individual politicians can back the candidates they prefer, but the state Democratic Party organizations should respect the right of the voters to pick the candidates the State Paryt should endorse and support. That's how democracy should work.

[MaggieD]

45. Well long term coalitions matter

... that's just the way it works. To our benefit. We need to all be pulling on the same oar. I have not heard that Dem leaders have a beef with MOM. If your assumption is correct it is probably about backing the candidate that is the clear front runner. Momentum means a lot in politics.

[elleng]

49. 'Dem leaders' support hrc,

BEFORE the people have spoken. State parties should stay OUT of fundraising at this point, and provide FORA for ALL the candidates, like these: http://www.c-span.org/video/?327791-1/dnc-meeting-democratic-presidential-candidates

https://politics.concordmonitor.com/2015/08/gov-federal/chafee-clinton-omalley-sanders-confirmed-for-nhdp-convention-webb-still-weighing-plans-to-attend/

[MaggieD]

54. That's ridiculous, IMO

We need strong state party leadership and fundraising. State parties raise money for Dems 24/7/365. And thank goodness they do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. Years ago the party bosses chose the candidates -

the old "smoke-filled room" phenomenon. Is that what we are devolving to with this bullshit?

[MaggieD]

62. I think it's more related to Dems supporting actual Dems

And being happy to work with the clear front runner in the race.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. Hillary isn't the only Democrat.

And she won't necessarily always be the front-runner.

[MaggieD]

82. As mentioned approx 6 times

.... in this thread, the article clearly states other candidates can make the same agreement.

[LuvLoogie]

91. If people weren't so dismissive

of the work she has done over the decades, the relationships she has built nationwide and worldwide, the years of service at the apex of American politics--they might understand that she has earned her position as the Democratic frontrunner.

Do people seriously expect her to withdraw because there are people that really, really don't like her and others that really, really want to be President, too?

As many have said, it's not a coronation. You gotta do the work.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

93. Nobody is suggesting she withdraw, or that she isn't qualified.

At least, I'm not. The point is simply that the people, not the party establishment, should be choosing the candidate. The reason primaries were created in the first place was to get away from the old practice of party bosses choosing the nominee and giving that decision to the people. The state parties should not be placing their thumbs on the scale by throwing extra financial support to a particular candidate.

[RoccoR5955]

111. I guess that it doesn't count

that he has supported many Democratic Party candidates?
I guess that caucusing with the party is not support either.
Why is it so bad that someone mentions that something is wrong with the party, then when the party refuses to change it, goes it on his own, but still supports good things that the party promotes?

[think]

8. Indeed. /nt

[Luminous Animal]

2. Oh sure Hillary is dedicated to taking money out of politics.

[MaggieD]

15. What's the game plan for doing that without....

.... winning? Do tell.

[840high]

42. Surely even you cannot

believe she would if elected.

[MaggieD]

47. Of course she would....

I think any Dem who is elected would. No Dem was happy about CU. NOT one.

[frylock]

67. Right after she's re-elected in 2020

[jfern]

3. And they wonder why we hate the establishment

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

109. Yup.

Now if these funds had been pledged to 'whoever becomes the eventual nominee', that would be fine. To jump ahead and dedicate them strictly for Hillary's use shows just how slanted the playing field actually is.

[Buns_of_Fire]

125. Exactly. Or even if the agreements HAD been negotiated by the Hillary Campaign

on behalf of the eventual nominee. That could have been spun as a truly statesman-like move, to help the party's nominee -- which is likely to be her, anyway -- and the party (after all, "coattails" are important!).

Ah, but "The Party's Nominee" in the General Election -- unless it's Hillary, of course -- isn't what we're concerned about here, is it? That's the impression it leaves. Otherwise, why have each candidate required to sign up separately?

It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And you'd think we'd be used to bad tastes in the mouth by now.

And I'll go ahead and answer the inevitable comment ("Why should she help their campaigns?&quot now: Okay then. But why should the state organizations be helping any individual Democratic candidates before the General Election? Doesn't sound very "democratic" to me.

[elleng]

126. Why should the state organizations be helping any individual Democratic candidates before the Genera

YES! as I said WAY above, in your face' bullshit. New Hampshire? Where we're breaking our backs for 'our' candidates!!!

[Joe the Revelator]

5. To anyone who says that the fix isn't in....nt

[PowerToThePeople]

38. Their own fix will be in

People have been awakened. They will not idly sit by and let tptb take away their rights. It will not end nicely for tptb if "fixing" the system is their plan and they are successful.

[msanthrope]

106. of course the fix is in. I didn't work my whole fucking life as a Democrat

To watch an independent fritter it away.

[short circuit]

7. Very well, this makes the state parties complicit

And it's time for a powerwash of these corporatist Democrats.

Mississippi, Wisconsin, New Hamsphire and Virginia. The state party members should be ashamed and the voters should throw these officials out.

Bernie all the way or nothing.

[MaggieD]

13. You're surprised Dem state parties support Dems?

It doesn't exclude other candidates from doing the same with the state parties.

[short circuit]

18. I'm surprised that they are not fundraising for other Democrats

such as Bernie, O'Malley, Chaffee, and Webb

Do you think it's fair?

I think not.

[MaggieD]

26. That's not how politics works

What is described in the article is how it works. The help is supposed to be reciprocal. That's why we have political parties.

[elleng]

28. 'joint fund-raising agreements with the hrc campaign'

doesn't exclude other candidates from doing the same???

[MaggieD]

29. Correct

It's explained in the article.

[leftofcool]

108. Bernie or no one, eh?

[LuvLoogie]

10. It looks like the Clinton campaign has a more responsive

and agile fundraising infrastructure than the DNC has. Perhaps the state parties find the DNC a bit too deliberate and centralized. This could really help to get money to downticket races more quickly and efficiently by putting state Democratic organizations in charge of distribution.

Gotta set up those phone banks and order those pizzas. Airfare and airtime ain't cheap.

[MaggieD]

14. Yes, and very smart of her for those reasons.

[think]

21. New Hampshire's state party chairman Raymond Buckley, is a vice chairman of the DNC

Looks more like more of the DNC violating rules of impartiality:

‘Impartial’ DNC finance chief helps Hillary Clinton

Fundraising assistance in Texas flouts presidential primary neutrality rules.

By BEN SCHRECKINGER 6/3/15 5:11 AM EDT

In an apparent violation of party rules requiring Democratic National Committee officers to remain neutral in presidential primaries, the DNC’s finance chairman has been raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina.

DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html#ixzz3jtGmZptu

Violating Impartiality: DNC Finance Chair Raises $ For Clinton

SUN JUN 07, 2015 AT 07:49 PM PDT

According to Politico, the Finance Chair for the DNC, Henry Munoz III, has helped organize a Clinton fund raising event and has also made calls to raise money for her campaign. And to make matters worse, the event in question is closed to the public and perpetuates the insider nature of her whole campaign:

Clinton’s fundraiser will take place at 3:30 local time at San Antonio’s Club Giraud. Co-hosts, who must raise $27,000, and event hosts, who must raise $50,000, gain access to a private reception with Clinton.
“We wish it was a public event,” said Medina, “but we understand she’s got a fundraising deadline real soon.”

~Snip~

It is perfectly fair to be concerned with how Hillary Clinton funds her campaign. She wants to bundle big contributions from big donors in events that are closed to the public. She is soliciting the help from the people who are supposed to, in effect, be the impartial referees of the process. This is yet another example of the Clintons believing there's one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everyone else.

Henry Munoz should resign from his position on the DNC after clearly violating impartiality and if Debbie Wasserman Schultz should as well ifs he can't enforce impartiality among the members of the committee.

You can call the DNC to tell them what you think of this at 202-863-8000...

Full post:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/08/1391438/-Violating-Impartiality-DNC-Finance-Chair-Raises-For-Clinton

[short circuit]

30. I swear, this version of DNC has to be absolutely the WORST

I've ever seen. McAuliffe was bad, but he wouldn't even fuck up the debates or find ways to screw the pooch before the debates even got underway.

[MaggieD]

33. Other candidates can make the same agreement

It's in the article.

[LuvLoogie]

40. From the NYT article:

In a statement, Mr. Buckley said, “I don’t think it is ever too early to start preparing to win the general election. State parties can sign such a fund-raising agreement with each of the candidates and I’ve told them all I’m willing to sign one for them.”

The agreement could grant the state parties access to more resources and allow extra help with voter registration and other matters. The option is legally available to any Democratic candidate. 

But only Mrs. Clinton has the ability to tap into donors who can write large checks, as well as the infrastructure that makes the arrangement work.

[think]

43. "others expressed reservations about the appearance — and realities — of the practice"

So congrats to the Clinton campaign for using every trick in the book to win just like Romney. I guess....

Some officials at state parties suggested the practice is similar to a fund-raising agreement with the campaign of a sitting senator or an insurgent in a statewide race. Those officials described it as similar to what Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, had with state parties. 

But others expressed reservations about the appearance — and realities — of the practice before there is a nominee.

[LuvLoogie]

51. If a presidential candidate doesn't act as if

and believe they are going to win, then why run?

Hillary knows her opposition is the GOP and their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and free air time and attacks from the punditry.

Internet telethons ain't going to do it.

She is preparing.

[Armstead]

59. In the ge fine. But not in a primary.

[LuvLoogie]

75. Should Democrats start raising 2 Billion dollars now,

or should they wait until next summer?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

110. They should start raising it now, for WHICHEVER NOMINEE IS PICKED.

NOT for a specific, named candidate, BEFORE the nominee is known.

It should go to a general fund available to whoever wins the primary, not be earmarked strictly for Hillary before a single state has voted or caucused.

[MaggieD]

11. More coming soon as well!

[oasis]

12. Terry McCauliffe is a fund raising dynamo. Let's roll up our sleeves

and get ready for 2016.

[short circuit]

20. He may be a fundraising god, but he can't deliver worth a damn

i'm still remembering 2000 and 2004.

[oasis]

31. Two stolen elections. What was Terry supposed to do? <nt>

[bbgrunt]

16. It is this kind of crap that turns people sour.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It's an excellent way of pissing off people so much

that they give directly to candidates and not to the party.

[MaggieD]

39. Why?

[Armstead]

52. Is that even legal? And/or kosher according to party rules?

Seems on its surface totally not legal. But maybe i'm missing something.

[MaggieD]

60. You're missing something

There is nothing exclusive about the agreement. It seems like those objecting didn't read the article.

[Armstead]

65. No but it gives an advantage to a front runner

I dunno. I'm too sleepy to worry about that one right now. Got to put my DU addiction to rest for the night.

[LuvLoogie]

72. From the article bold emphasis--mine:

In a statement, Mr. Buckley said, “I don’t think it is ever too early to start preparing to win the general election. State parties can sign such a fund-raising agreement with each of the candidates and I’ve told them all I’m willing to sign one for them.”

The agreement could grant the state parties access to more resources and allow extra help with voter registration and other matters. The option is legally available to any Democratic candidate. 

But only Mrs. Clinton has the ability to tap into donors who can write large checks, as well as the infrastructure that makes the arrangement work.

[MaggieD]

80. Not sure why someone....

Wouldn't read the article before commenting. Odd.

[LuvLoogie]

95. Because nothing that Hillary Lannister does is legit...

So what's the point in going beyond an OP or a headline?

People are so inundated with FUD when it comes to Hillary, that often their first reaction is to wince.

[MaggieD]

96. Well there is that - LOL!

[Historic NY]

98. +1

[riversedge]

128. Read the article linked to OP -it talks about your question.

[Autumn]

61. WTF.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. Meh. it's all just jockeying for a higher place on the Lincoln Bedroom Reservation List.

I wonder how much it'll go for per night if Hillary wins. I read in the Seattle PI years ago that they had close to a thousand people sleep in it.

Ala Motel 6 "We'll leave the porch light on."

[MaggieD]

68. That article was about Bush

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Selling-Lincoln-bedroom-disrespectful-1097153.php

[frylock]

76. During his eight-year tenure, Clinton had more than 900 guests

The Lincoln room became controversial in recent years when former President Bill Clinton offered the thrill of spending a night in it to celebrities, big contributors and many of his Arkansas friends, relatives and supporters. During his eight-year tenure, Clinton had more than 900 guests, including 72 of daughter Chelsea Clinton's chums, and the White House admitted that most of these overnight guests got to try out the Lincoln bed.

Clinton's guests included entertainer Barbra Streisand, actor Tom Hanks, producer Steven Spielberg, playwright Neil Simon, former Chrysler chairman Lee Iaccoca, the Rev. Billy Graham, actress Jane Fonda and her then husband Ted Turner, founder of the Cable News Network.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush sanctimoniously accused Clinton of "virtually renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big campaign donors." He condemned the use of the "hallowed" chamber for political payoffs.

Often, however, once a candidate wins the White House, he soon begins to savor the perks his predecessors enjoyed.

Last month it was disclosed that Bush and his wife Laura have hosted about 160 guests at the White House so far. But a White House spokeswoman refused to say how many had tried the Lincoln bed in the hallowed room.

[MaggieD]

79. Chelsea's friends big donors

At the tender age of teenagers?

[frylock]

89. Look! Over there!

That article was about Bush

[MaggieD]

90. Barbara Striesand a big power broker in the corp world?

How about Tom Hanks?

[frylock]

92. I merely corrected your misrepresentation of the article in question..

most people would have moved on. Most people with a shred of character would've admitted they were incorrect in their interpretation of the article, and then moved on.

[MaggieD]

94. It's an opinion piece by Helen Thomas

Basically written to call Bush a hypocrite. I live here and I saw it when it was originally published in the PI, NOT BY the PI.

[frylock]

97. Yes, it was. It also confirmed cherokeeprogressive's claim, which you sought to debunk.

[Control-Z]

124. They let Chelsea have sleepovers?

Oh, the horror! Teenage girl has friends spend the night.

We should have expected it, though. You know how the privileged are with their own kids.

[frylock]

127. SQUIRREL!

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. Can you read? The article was about The Lincoln Bedroom.

Clinton was mentioned first and the article ended with a paragraph about how disrespectful the Clintons and Bushes BOTH were.

Wow you actually took the time to find the article. I'm flattered and amused.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. With that kind of turnover you'd have to worry about bedbugs.

[djean111]

69. This is why I only donate directly to Bernie. Not a damned nickel to Wasserman and Co.

Guess what? To me, they stopped being "Democrats" quite a while ago.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

73. I've never donated to the party, and with these shenanigans

I never will. On the few rare occasions when they've got me on the phone I tell them I donate only to a candidate. If my state party starts pulling this shit they will hear from me.

[MaggieD]

74. This is about state parties, not the DNC

[djean111]

81. I know that, MaggieD. But - I live in Florida, and DebbieWasserman-Third-Way is quite active in the

Florida state party. Being as how she is a Representative and all. She is meddling in the upcoming primary between Patrick Murphy (just turned Dem for convenience in 2012 or so - do you consider him a "true Democrat"?) and Alan Grayson, for Rubio's seat. She has sat out state elections when her GOP buddies are running. Here in Florida, the DNC and state groups are intertwined. But - to make it more clear - I will only be contributing directly to Bernie, and I have made that known, and had myself taken off the email list.

[MaggieD]

83. Voters in FLA prefer their Dems moderate

They've been pretty consistent about that over the years. That's just the region.

[djean111]

85. Not all of us. And we will make ourselves known.

In Wassermann's case - "moderate" means Third Way. At best. And when she refused to campaign for actual Democrats because she did not want to upset her GOP friends - that's when I knew that the Democratic Party is pretty much gone. Not a penny from me, not a vote for a Third Wayer. Set in stone.

[MaggieD]

86. I hear ya....

I got so sick of living in a red state I moved.

[djean111]

87. I will stay and fight - ironic that the head of the DNC pretty much is happy with a red state.

The whole membership of the New Democrat Coalition is on my no more votes for you (when the opportunity arises).
So - no money from me (and anyone I can influence) to the DNC or Florida Dem party. Money goes right to the candidate.

[MaggieD]

88. I think it's a losing battle to get true libs elected there

.... But I admire you for trying. Indiana was hopeless. I think if you can elect Dems, period, and bring Fla into the blue for presidential elections you're rocking it down there.

[djean111]

114. Ironically, Florida will not be what I consider "blue" until Wasserman and her gang are gone.

It is the "electing "Dems", period" that is making Florida more red, at this point in time. "Dem" has gotten to be such an elusive description these days - to some, it just means the "D". People jeer at Liz Warren for being a Republican years ago, but down here I am expected to vote for Patrick Murphy, who only changed into a D jersey in 2012, not because of any change of heart, but in order to challenge Allen West. A Wasserman-favored Third Wayer. No votes from this household when he and Grayson primary for Rubio's seat.

[MaggieD]

115. Well you're entitled to your opinion....

But I think you're overlooking the power of a majority in congress. To me, that's a higher priority than trying to elect pure liberals in places that just aren't that liberal.

[djean111]

117. Yes. I am entitled to my opinion, for sure!

The only rebuilding within the Democratic Party these days is by the Third Way Centrists.

[MaggieD]

119. Well, the thing is....

Party leaders have to deal with political reality in their states. Luckily that's not a burden you have to share.

The best thing you can do is to keep pointing out to voters that rethugs suck in order to open the door to any Democrat. Then you can run a pure liberal and get them elected. You're not going to change the tide of moderates in your district by telling everyone that Dems suck, that's for sure.

[JustAnotherGen]

105. This is why the DNC

And I parted ways in November 2013.

They left us in hell in NJ just so they could better the odds that Christie would enter the race.

Even my favorite town council man who is a Libertarian can see how they f*cked us over. Never question why Progressives, Conservatives, Libertarians, Socialists etc etc in this state of small towns and boroughs packed tight/closely together have a strong streak of anti state and fed government coursing through them right now.

We are on our own because the "fix" is in at higher levels. Until our tax dollars paid into things of value and benefit us - no support to "National" anything.

The "fix" is in and I won't be even remotely surprised if Sweeney (D - NJ) goes along with this because he wants to be Governor.

[MaggieD]

116. This has zero to do with the DNC

[HereSince1628]

112. WIdems? As Jimmy Carville would say...they have a history of losing

Knowing them as I do, I'm not sure that's a group I'd look to for being in touch with WI voters.

But, as we are repeatedly told by the Rahm Emmanuel School of Politics, money is more important than voters. So Congrats to the Hillary campaign!

[Skwmom]

118. So now the Republicans can taint those state Democratic Parties with the Clinton scandals.

Brilliant move.

[bunnies]

129. Fuck that. My state party wont get another fucking dime from me.

Make a deal with Clinton when Sanders is ahead here? No.

[olddots]

131. contributing to a state party

is like washing your feet with your socks on .