Why is Hillary raising money for her Senate run in Kansas City & St Louis?

Doesn't she have enough already to take on Jonathan Tasini in a Democratic Primary for her Seat? I think she already has tens of millions in her war chest. The problem is that money is needed in Missouri for a hotly contested U.S. Senate race there:

Hillary Clinton's Quiet Visit To KC Raises Eyebrows
Clinton Also Had Unannounced Fundraiser Monday In St. Louis

POSTED: 2:23 pm CST March 22, 2006
UPDATED: 4:20 pm CST March 22, 2006

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- An unannounced fundraising luncheon in Kansas City for Sen. Hillary Clinton has drawn the criticism not only of Republicans, but of some Democrats in a state where one of the nation's premier U.S. Senate races is heating up.

She also had a fundraiser in St. Louis on Monday that was unannounced.

Clinton, a Democrat from New York and potential presidential candidate, spent 90 minutes Monday at the home of Kansas City lawyer Herb Kohn, an adviser to Mayor Kay Barnes. Clinton walked away with about $40,000 for her Senate re-election campaign, but Democratic critics wonder at what cost to others running for office.

"The timing is bad," said Democratic activist Woody Overton. "We have a U.S. Senate race going on in Missouri. Claire (McCaskill) needs every dime she can raise right now."
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/8190467/detail.html?rss=kc1&psp=news

But she HAS plenty of money to defend herself already, and New York is a big money state. We usually export money from New York to help Democrats in other States. Hillary has no serious Republican opposition inside New York. If she decides to run for President in 2008 that will be a different story of course, but can't she wait to raise money around the country for herself until after the 2006 elections? I think Hillary has much more money now than any other Democrat in the nation, and if I am wrong about that I doubt I am wrong by much.

But her war chest makes the Republicans tremble in their boots, and I'm all for that.

I went to a fundraiser for Patrick Kennedy( Rhode Island) in Arizona. Go figure.

:shrug: ?????

Go Hill! :rofl:

Replace Hillary's name with any popular nationally know Democrat or a Democratic Presidential candidate. It's the same old story. Locals are not fond of non-locals raising money on their turf.

some fund raiser that was. Heck Kohn might have cut that check by himself.

Schumer asks for $50K from each corporation he approaches.

how does he get $50,000 each?

One sent his request with a pre-paid Fedex return envelope. Faso (in the GOP primary for NY Governor)asked for 5-figures too; it seems to be the going rate. I'm surprised their offices even pick up the phone when voters call.

Check this out:

Schumer has even persuaded Republican supporters to write checks to his personal campaigns, including former Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Philip Purcell and Stephen Lessing, head of client relationship management at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., according to campaign finance reports. Each raised at least $200,000 for President George W. Bush's re-election.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8snMg6xAVS0&refer=us

Why doesn't she raise some fucking money for Democrats fighting for a seat in 2006? Shit, she could fully fund a dozen races with her pocket money, at this point.

Senate candidates hold fundraisers in other states all the time. I'm sure Claire will have a few in NY at some point. Not that I agree with the practice, but that's the way it is.

I think already having that in the bank for a "Senate Campaign" that she is gauranteed to win is a bit unusual. Why go and shake down St. Louis for another 40k? Because this isn't about 2006, it's about 2008.

if she raises funds for the senate can she used them in the pres campaign?

She's not raising much money at all for HillPAC, which is meant for others. She's doing it for the "re-election campaign" and all that money can be used for a primary run.

Presidential.

In NJ, I'm mad that Bill sent a letter indicating she needed money as the number 1 target (who doesn't really have an opponent). Menendez will have a much tougher race.

That's what irks me. Hillary has tens of millions already. There are a gazillion millionaires inside New York, and there is not one serious Republican challenger to her for her Senate seat. Can't she give it a rest and urge those people instead to support the local Democrat running in their own state so we can actually regain the Senate in 2006?

It's just not the same thing for her, in her situation to go collect money in Kansas City as it is for a underfunded U.S. Senate candidate from Missouri to come to New York City to collect some sorely needed money from a deep pockets Blue state. We're comparing The Big Apple and oranges here.

The Mission Of HILLPAC

HILLPAC is committed to electing candidates who are dedicated to the principle that by coming together and working as a community, we can improve opportunity and security for all Americans.

HILLPAC works to elect government officials who want to ensure our country lives up to the ideals of our nation's founders and embodies the values of the Democratic Party, dedicated to a better future for every child, from every family.....


HILLPAC believes we can make a difference by electing Democrats who will fight to put our economy back on the right track, protect the homeland, preserve and create good jobs, fight for a cleaner environment, improve schools, provide quality health care and develop national security policies that will truly keep America safe.


She is a powerhouse of a fundraiser--and she doesn't keep all the money. Another one who is raising cash and doling it out is Al Franken, FWIW...

"Clinton walked away with about $40,000 for her Senate re-election campaign, but Democratic critics wonder at what cost to others running for office."

I would not have reacted if the fundraising was for HILLPAC.

Unless they had a covert operative in there....

as "a secret undisclosed location". This isn't like uncovering deep throat level reporting. Plus there was no denial from Clinton's office. I think most likely it was exactly what the newspaper said it was.

It wasn't in the top 10 when the last quarter's numbers came out.

she will sink this party in 2008.

What she is is a hell of a fundraiser, and there's nothing wrong with that. Instead of trashing her, I wish people could at least embrace what she bring to the table as a strong target that pisses off the Republicans. Let her take the heat until the real Dem candidate emerges. No need to assist the GOP in annihilating her.

I'm telling you, Al's our man in 2008, I have no doubt about it.

:smoke:

If news of Hillary's fund raising abilities scares the Republicans and that is a good thing, than our talking about it here won't annihilate her. I'm concerned about taking back the Senate in 2006. I don't mind talking about possible 2008 candidates, I do that myself, and I want to keep two Democrats in the Senate from New York come 2007, I just want Claire McCaskill to join them there from Missouri. I want to elect Democrats from Red and Purple States. If Hillary needs money to beat back a Republican challenger in New York, I'll donate to her campaign. I just don't see that as the case.

I just tend to think standing back a bit more on issues and looking at the bigger picture. I understand your frustration in thinking Hillary might be encroaching on funds that might be going to the candidate you support in your state (forgive my ignorance, I'm in California), but maybe that's not the case. I feel pretty confident Howard Dean will see to it that candidates will have the money they need, and you can always donate directly to her campaign.

Hillary just has many pluses to add to the mix people don't want to look at. I LOVE the way the Republicans are obsessed with her. I feel comforted having at least one Democrat with strength enough to cause a stir. It doesn't preclude other candidates, either in 2006 or 2008.

And I'm all for talking about 2008 candidates. Al Gore for me please.

Is that Hillary, who will win NY in a walk without much competition, since the repukes can't even get together behind an opponent, is taking cash from other states she certainly doesn't need.

Put simply, she is hurting her fellow Democrats by going into their states and taking limited campaign funds from local races in 2006 for her primary run in 2008. That doesn't make her a good citizen in my book.

The Republicans couldn't care less about how much money she has. They know she will be well funded and they have never been at a loss for money. What they are really afraid of is Jane and Joe Democrat from the X District in Ohio having the money to take their seat and give the Democrats the MAJORITY. And THAT should be Hillary's concern, when she does shit like this.

it's cynical greed and opportunism at the expense of the other candidates. She's "draining the pond", so there is little or no water left for anyone but her to swim in...

I cannot abide her, her methods, or the organization that supports her. She will NEVER get my vote. Never.

TC

Which is why I don't share the resentment for Hillary. High profile candidates raise money in other states; that's not unusual. Hopefully she is hitting up people who can afford to spread the wealth. Again, I feel confident Dean has this covered.

However, I will defer to people who feel she is draining the pond in their own state who, of course, have every right to feel that way since there is no way to know for sure.

As a New Yorker, I've been looking hard at the alternatives to Hillary. (Since 9/11, I've given up on hoping that she'll start representing me and my values.)

So I can't help being impressed by Jonathan Tasini. (See tasinifornewyork.org if you want to know why.) The man is politically experienced, wonderfully articulate, and completely straightforward about what he is for. And that is progressive ideas and values.

On Daily Kos today, he waded courageously into the Israel-Palestine-Corrie issues. Not only was he clear about what needs to happen regarding Israeli policy if all parties (including the U.S.) have any hope of moving forward together, but he was just as clear about what issues he wasn't going to try to address at the moment. No easy answers, no cure-all, no papering over conflicts and difficulties - just good solid movement toward peace and justice, with an appropriately supportive U.S. role. What a refreshing change!

So I'm encouraging every Dem who knows me to vote for Tasini over Clinton. With lots of support and a little luck we won't have Hillary to kick around anymore ...

I don't share the hate for Hillary that is felt by some around here (and I know that annoys the crap out of some people), so I won't try to argue this issue other than to say the likelihood of picking Hillary off in the primary is slim to nonexistent.

the odds of getting her attention via a challenge on the issues is significantly higher. Since the Republicans are in such bad shape in New York I'm not afraid of Hillary being weakened by a primary fight Honestly I would like to see some issues debated among Democrats here. Tasini isn't a one issue protest candidate, he has a full platform, including strong support for a single payer health care system. I wouldn't mind having a primary where Hillary was asked to fully address that and a few more issues that progressives care about.

I realize a lot of men dislike her, but she's strong enough to stand up to all the dissent. She's had 12 years of practice holding her own against the tyrants in the fascist party. :hug:

Hillary is just gathering up as much as she can before 2007 when she begins her run for the white house.

of needing it for her senate race this year can be carried over for use in a Presidential run. Now answer me this, how much money will she really need to run against another, no name, no money candidate. I am not even sure at this point, she even has an opponent running against her.

Now, I really don't like the fact that she is taking potential money away from a candidate that really needs the funds.

From the same article, (ever hear of her?):

"The path to Clinton's Senate re-election became a bit easier last week, when it was discovered that potential challenger Kathleen Troia McFarland had not voted in recent elections and was registered in two places, which could lead to criminal charges under New York state law."