Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (4044)	11/2/2006 5:04:27 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

HILL'S $50 MIL FILL ELEX FUND TOPS IN AMERICA By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent HILLARY CLINTON October 29, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - The most expensive Senate race in what experts are already calling the costliest midterm elections in U.S. history is in New York, where Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton has built a political machine aimed at a big victory on Nov. 7 - and beyond. The Democratic senator is the biggest spender and fund-raiser during a campaign season in which candidates will spend $2.6 billion, according to the Center for Responsible Politics. With control over Congress at stake, the center estimated candidates in both parties will have spent $59 per vote in Senate races and $35 per vote in House races. In most races, campaigns are bombarding voters with TV ads and spending big on get-out-the-vote operations, some believing every dollar will make a difference. "The tighter the race, the higher the cost," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsible Politics. That is, except in New York - where Clinton holds a whopping 67 percent to 30 percent lead over her opponent, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, according to an Oct. 20 Marist poll. Data released on the Center for Responsible Politics' Web site, opensecrets.org, revealed that Clinton has raised $48.8 million and spent $33.3 million on her Senate campaign. That is nearly twice what has been raised by the nation's next biggest spender, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is running behind Democrat Bob Casey Jr. in the race to keep his Senate seat. Santorum has raised $25 million this year and spent $21.4 million this year, according to opensecrets.org. Meanwhile, Casey raised $15 million and spent $11.3 million. The ultra-tight Senate race in Missouri, between incumbent GOP Sen. James Talent and Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill, is the third most expensive campaign. Most experts believe Clinton's impressive fund-raising this year was designed to lock up top talent and build a national organization to run for the White House in 2008. Clinton has refused to say whether she's seeking the presidency. But one thing is clear: her fund-raising this year completely dwarfs that of her opponent. Spencer has raised a paltry $4.7 million and spent $4.2 million for his uphill battle against Clinton. Rob Ryan, spokesman for the Spencer campaign, accused Clinton of trying "to pull the wool over the eyes of New Yorkers" by raising and spending so much cash in a Senate campaign that really appears designed for a national campaign. "She's used New York State as a doormat," Ryan said. Howard Wolfson, a Clinton political adviser responded by saying "after his week of insults and lies, I'm not sure there are any New Yorkers who care what John Spencer thinks."

To: KLP who wrote (4044)	11/2/2006 10:57:43 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

What you wrote was a lot of anti-Clinton spin which you swallowed hook, line and sinker. Clinton did destroy a good number of Taliban bases and training camps in Afghanistan and he lobbed a cruise missile meant for sending Osama to his Paradise. Unfortunately, even though the missile landed close to Osama, it failed to explode. Osama vowed spectacular reprisals and the rest is history. Clinton acted against Saddam Hussein by bombing his radar complexes each time the Iraqis violated the terms of the No-Fly Zone. He also took punitive action against Sudan. It is pathetic that you seem to ignore what Clinton had done. Or were you unaware of all that he did? It seems that you were trying to foist blame on the Dems for the current failures of the Repubs. It is not going to work. Did you know that when Mike Wallace tried to discredit Clinton on his {Mike's} show, Mike ended up looking foolish? What's past is past. It's no use crying over supposedly missed opportunities and/or actions that reportedly went awry. It is also illogical to assume that whatever mistakes or omissions Clinton might have been guilty of will be repeated by other Democrats. It seems to me you have a compulsion to smear or discredit the Dems. Too bad and so very sad! I believe you are wasting your time. . .