Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Shooting at UW, Two Dead | Save Seattle Clubs: Email Marg... »

Monday, April 2, 2007

The Idea That Hillary is Elitist is an Elitist Idea (Pt. 2)

posted by on April 2 at 11:18 AM

As Eli noted in Morning News, the first quarter fundraising totals are in for the declared 2008 presidential hopefuls—and Hillary Clinton raised a startling $26 million.

Here’s the more impressive news from Clinton, as reported by the NYT

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said that it had received contributions from 50,000 donors and that 80 percent had given less than $100 each.

This is just more evidence that self-hating elitist liberals who are nervous that Clinton is a turn off to the lumpen prole vote are clumsily misreading the lumpen prole vote as they (double reverse back flip) awkwardly try temper their own feelings to cater to the lumpen prole vote.

As I’ve reported before: HRC will get the Wal-Mart vote.

Now, if you don’t like her because she’s a hawk, well, that’s your own problem.

RSS icon Comments


If the lumpen proletariat voted, this would be a different world or at least a different north america. 100 bucks? Those are engaged voters with jobs.

Posted by SeMe | April 2, 2007 11:22 AM

I can't imagine how any reasonable person could even think that anybody who thinks they stand a reasonable chance of having any say in the running of the United States government could not be either crazy or in the highest echelons of the world's elite, right up there with Hillary Clinton.

Also, or maybe therefore, I sort of think participating in US 'democracy' is elitist all on its own. Which is why elites like me do so.

Posted by John | April 2, 2007 11:31 AM

Eli, the real proletariats are not donating any money to politicians. I guarantee you, these $100 donors are yuppies who are up to their neck in house and BMW payments.

Posted by Sean | April 2, 2007 11:44 AM

Hillary is the front-runner. Anyone perceived to be the front-runner has a huge fundraising edge. As with Kerry, Hillary is the candidate many perceive as "electable" or at least most electable of the available choices, and so the Democratic faithful are throwing their support to her. Remember that a lot of Democratic voters who supported Kerry with contributions and votes didn't do so because they thought he was the candidate most closely aligned with their ideals, just the candidate with the best shot at beating the other guy.

It would be nice if people would vote by issues in the primary and by candidate in the general, but the election season has stretched into such a protracted affair that at least the media seems to be skipping the issue phase and jumping right to the celebrity popularity contest phase.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 2, 2007 11:58 AM

Does anyone reading this watch Fox News just to help them purge and loose weight? The GOP mouth piece is practically praying that Hillary will get the nomination. And do we really want to nominate who Fox news LOVES the idea of running for President on the Democratic side?

Posted by Andrew | April 2, 2007 12:02 PM

Andrew @5, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the wingbats on Faux News have to say. Do you think that the Fox wingbats are any more likely to champion Obama? Or Edwards? Or any Democratic candidate of any kind? No. They'll thrash any and all Dems they consider to be a threat to their "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

What I would be more interested in is actual hard polling data gathered by in an unbiased representative poll. Contrary to Faux News' blather, Hillary is not unelectable. Polls I was watching a couple months ago showed her beating any of the Republican candidates, either as a group or individually.

I'm not saying that she is the best candidate, or that I'm a huge fan. I'm somewhat indifferent to her at this point. I know the polling numbers will change, and it is still almost a year until the primary madness begins. But the polling data shows that it is perfectly realistic to think that she is a viable candidate who could win a general election.

Personally, I'd like to see either Obama or Hillary win, if for no other reason than to break the 200+ year cycle of old-white-guy presidents. Neither is a perfect candidate, but either would be WAY better than the current moron in chief.

With the Republican's popularity plummeting, and Bush doing everything he possibly can to ruin any chances of any Republican candidate to succeed him, now might be the ideal time for the Dems to take a chance on a presidential candidate who is NOT an old white guy.

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 2, 2007 1:10 PM

Hilary is our best chance. I'm a liberal and care about positions on issues, but I also care about ability and experience. O'bama will be ready in 2012 or 2016, he's just not ready for 2008.

Posted by justwinbaby | April 2, 2007 3:31 PM

The country has had enough of Republicans and their war. Whoever gets the Dem nomination will be elected president by a landslide.

Posted by Sean | April 2, 2007 11:06 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).