Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans

[alp227]

Gary Hart has serious reservations about a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

The prospect of a billion-dollar Clinton campaign “ought to frighten every American,” he said in an interview with POLITICO, and Democrats would be better served by a competitive primary that forced her to speak in more depth about the issues.

Hart, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, offered his opinions in a phone interview Wednesday where he also expressed admiration of Elizabeth Warren and gave advice to prospective challenger Martin O’Malley, a former Hart campaign staffer.

“I like Hillary Clinton. I really appreciate what she and her husband have done…but we need new leaders,” said Hart, a former Colorado senator who rose from the bottom of the polls and nearly took down Walter Mondale in the 1984 primaries.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Frightened? No. Disgusted? Yes.

[noella17]

79. LOL! Good comment! Agreed.

I was a huge supporter of Hart back in 1984. Funny how the most progressive candidates always seem to get caught up in these scandals...I know that you can't get caught if you don't do the deed but still...

[cascadiance]

151. Yeah, if the Clintons were more liberal, they'd have probably been pushed out earlier...

... and Bill Clinton, Dershowitz and Epstein more publicly exposed rather than having a lot of nebulous stuff come out many years later.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922773/Newly-released-flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan-Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html

Interesting that the UK news sites do wish to cover it, even when their own Prince Andrew might have been involved here too.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. Well said. No doubt there are those here that will either defend or deny the quid pro quo of politics. Disgusting is right.

[fredamae]

2. A $2Bn + Election

ought to scare the crap outta Everyone. It ain't just the Clinton's .... It's the going price on the menu these days for the Oval Office no matter Who you are and no matter What you call yourself politically. Period.
SCOTUS, Kochs et al brought That to the table.

[misterhighwasted]

4. when the Kochs donate 900 million alone, Hart's calling out the wrong team.

How bout laying this gluttonous monster at the feet of the Supreme Court, Mr Hart.
Singling out the Clintons make your accusation seem petty.
Call out the people who made it all possible.

[ffr]

8. +1 ^^^this ^^^ n/t

[sakabatou]

26. +3

[hopemountain]

39. exactly!

the money spent on campaigns by both sides is appalling & profane. election price tags will continue to escalate until citizens united is stopped.

[noella17]

80. Yes but the Clintons ran/run as DEMOCRATS.

The Supreme Court has Alito, Thomas and Scalia. They never have pretended to be anything other than what they are.

[rhett o rick]

89. There is enough blame to go around. Granted the SCOTUS did a dastardly deed

but the Clinton's are the ones taking advantage.

[misterhighwasted]

90. They are ALL taking advantage because the Supreme Court allowed it.

Any candidate that starts a PAC does it. Do not tell me they don't get as much money as they can into that PAC.
They do it because the Supreme Court allowed it.
Neither Clintons are on the SUpreme Court that decided it.
This disaster belongs to the SC.

[rhett o rick]

115. I think you will find that some candidates are getting way more money than

other candidates. The SCOTUS didn't make Golman-Sachs support HRC.

[misterhighwasted]

119. And Goldman couldn't give endless money to any campaign without the SCourt say so.

Whatever.
Bye

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

131. Right on point Rick, as usual.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

130. Agree with you there mister; there's plenty of blame to go around.

[ananda]

6. Thank you! This is not Clinton's fault.

This is what any candidate has to do these days.

And I too blame SCOTUS and the Kochs, et. al.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Yep

Thank the SCOTUS for Citizens United.

[Cryptoad]

12. Teh Koch's court

has insured that a Progressive Democrat will never be elected President.

[appalachiablue]

13. Indeed, the KOCH COURT it is-

[misterhighwasted]

27. Koch's Citizens United & GOP S Court picks is why

..the Great Bernie Sanders cannot afford to run for President. Among others who would make America a far better country.

And this big money is why we have Teaparty, Rw Christians, upending the rights of all citizens.
And why we have people like Ernst, Gohmert, & Hard Right one liners legislating State & Federal laws.

The decision rested with the Supreme Court & they allowed it.
The balance of power lies with the SCourt and THAT can only be changed with a Dem President in 2016 & an more favorable balance in our legislature.

That's what's at stake in 2016.
People need to be drawn to vote.
2016 is the tipping point for our Government & Nation.
FOREVER.

[misterhighwasted]

46. Ridiculous is expecting any Dem without 1.5 billion to defeat the GOP.

Hillary Clinton will never stack the SC with another Scalia.
Everything she has dedicated her life & fight for would be moot by a RW judge.Start with Equal Rights. That's a pretty broad brushstroke alone.

That is her life's work and it certainly matters a whole lot to me as a voter.
Don't know about you.

[betterdemsonly]

61. That's my bet too

The Clinton's aren't going to pick a judge that will change this dynamic. They love this. Remember Blanche Lincoln? They'd rather lose to a republican then let real dems win. They also played a role in picking the last Democratic loser in Arkansas. He opposed raising the minimum wage with a winning minimum wage initiative on the ballot. Tom Cotton supported raising minimum wage and won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Bill Clinton put Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsburg on SCOTUS who are dependable liberal votes...

Bill Clinton put Stephen Breyer & Ruth Bader Ginsburg on SCOTUS who are dependable liberal votes and both voted against Citizens United.

[betterdemsonly]

83. So they are enough to placate liberals without tipping the balance

away from the oligarchy, in anyway. Future appointments that might tip the balance away from the 1 and 1/4 party state will probably be more conservative. That has always been the Clinton game.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. You implied the Clintons would appoint conservative justices

The Clinton's aren't going to pick a judge that will change this dynamic.

I was just disabusing you of that notion.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Maybe you need to read her stand on the issues before declaring she would not stand up to them.

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm


Those talking points are not factual.

[Thinkingabout]

41. See, you continue with the same baseless talking points. If you read the information in

The link I provided you will find the truth. Do you think Bernie is the center? If Bernie is your center then yes Hillary is right of center. She is a hard core liberal, sits in the same spot as EW.

[Thinkingabout]

58. Let me say this, she represents the Democratic Party of which I am a member.

Your talking points are baseless and Bernie is not a member of the DNC and he is too far left. I do not agree where he stands.

[Thinkingabout]

100. You are wrong, this is the same talking point delivered, cognitive dissonance does not work on me.

[Thinkingabout]

105. Where is your link she is a corporatist?

[Thinkingabout]

111. I read them and they spoke of admiration of Hillary, not that she is a corporatist.

[zappaman]

44. Welcome back...

Again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. What was his or her previously alt?

I like Gary Hart and voted for him in 84 but the poster's suggestion that Donna Rice was part of a honey trap was absurd...She was no more of a honey trap than LBJ's , JFK's, and Bill Clinton's paramours... They just never got caught in flagrante delicto and in LBJ's and JFK's era the press didn't talk about such stuff...

Doesn't mean they weren't great presidents though...

[hrmjustin]

110. maybe again as well.

[misterhighwasted]

54. Wow! Well the S Court IS the reason why many great candidates cannot compete.

You should maybe consider that fragile balance will not last a month without a DEM win.
Say bye bye American Pie, then.
We will not recover.
Do what you like.
I will support the strongest candidate who can compete with what they are up against.
The SCourt is why we have Citizens United & Hobby Lobby.
I for one, certainly do give a "crap" about that.
Bye.

[misterhighwasted]

57. Who told you that?? OYE!

Closed mind.

[Cryptoad]

43. Do tell

how is Bernie or any Progressive going to get a billion dollar war chest? And a Billion is just a minimum starting point now that the corps can give all they want..... Kock says they are going to give a Billion themselves.

[JDPriestly]

22. It's the going price on the TPP and on lax regulation of the financial sector.

It's the going price for low taxes on the 1%. It's the going price on selling America to the rich.

[misterhighwasted]

32. Exactly.

The US has become the Titanic & money stacked on one side is weighing a lot more than all of us huddled on the opposite side.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. We should be outraged at both parties for spending this much money. This money could go

to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate people. The rich people, Republicans and Democrats alike, are destroying this country.

[misterhighwasted]

59. Yes. Outraged that it ever got to this critical point. nt

[fredamae]

143. SCOTUS changed the Political game

rules for the Global Billionaires Club.
From my political vantage point:

One side Really, Really Wanted to change the game rules to allow unlimited, unidentified donations to "buy" seats....and the other didn't and they're Over-Ruled" by the 2010 SCOTUS Citizens United decision.

We understand the problem...So, What alternative do you suggest? The "poor peoples" candidates sat in Horror as all these "theatrical, Horror/Thriller themed docudramas" were being produced to scare the living Hell out of us...keep us scared...and they have No cash of their own to rebut?

I'd like to believe any "good" candidate can win on the merits of their own actions/records etc...like Sanders does in VT.

It doesn't work on a National Stage. VT is a tiny, tiny state compared to the rest of the country.
We're in an "electoral rut" in that far too many people are so Disgusted, So bored or So overwhelmed trying to survive "this"..that they actually use these awful "million dollar ad buys" as their "information dock" from which they draw their voting decisions.
At this point, I'm beginning to see how SCOTUS "kettled" both the candidates And the electorate. I don't see relief anytime soon.

Money was flowing pretty freely anyway but SCOTUS Dismantled the rest of the Dam....for wall street/kochs/big corp/adelson et al and now we're all drowning in a Flood of Cash.

We, Us, The Voters must learn to Shut Off the Loud/Screaming intrusions of these multi million dollar investments into Buying Our government.

It means it's our responsibility to see MSM for what it Mostly is: A Big 'Ol Political Infomercial...FOX is constantly "plugged" on M$NBC, Crazy guests mostly go unchallenged, Commercials last longer and longer as the Scripted Actors share Elaborated Horrors experienced from "the other side".

It is up to us to screen calls, donate Directly to favored candidates-(they're the ones who need it), hit the Mute button and so on...see it as it Is, not as "it" was or how "it" Should be and start dealing with reality.

Do your Own research, background checks on candidates. Talk to other folks. Join your local party and become a pcp. Get involved locally.

"They", as we sit here Bitching about Our candidates "taking dirty dark money" are simultaneously Buying US (our votes with nasty lying ads)..And "we" Don't See That!
WE Are Guilty of the Same Moral Crime IF We Allow "Them" to Buy Our Votes (by voting for the "Star" of their info-docudrama ads) and as we are distracted by our own criticisms of Them...and all their Money we say we Loath- Their Money Is buying us Every time we Vote for the "Stars of the Political Runway aka:"old guard" that brought us this misery in the first place.
Vicious circle.
What are We going to do about it? Shake things up, collectively? Or just keep bitching as we go along with the status quo..............again?

We need more than just having the "problem" pointed out and discussed ad nauseam..over and over again. Nothing will change without also talking about and doing something about the solutions and What part We, the electorate can play in making it come to fruition.....
All, imvho...of course.

[SophieKoko]

148. End Citizens United

All of this is going to get worse until we stop big money's chokehold on our politicians --> they are in the deep pockets of the 1%. Stamp your money with anti-corruption messages and get people to realize that until we reverse Citizens United, none of this is getting fixed.
Go to http://www.stampstampede.org/collections --> I have the stamp that says "Corporations are not people. Amend the Constitution" and I'm stamping all the cash I see in sight.

We need to nip Big Business in the bud, people! Amend, amend, amend!

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Ol' Monkey Business Hart.

Not a bad politician, not a bad Democrat, but Donna Rice.

[HereSince1628]

7. I sort of go with the old 'unified character' theory on this...

manifestation of personal exceptionalism in a charismatic person is a warning sign.

In the case of Hart it destroyed him as a functional democrat, it's come too close to that for a handful of others in my lifetime.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. You nailed it.

That whole Rice thing was so weird--it was like he was daring the press to take him down. Caught on a yacht named Monkey Business with a bimbo after allegations had already surfaced…

I dunno if it's narcissism or self-hating sabotage (and the 2 are not mutually exclusive), but there was sure SOMETHING wrong with that guy.

[Drunken Irishman]

113. It wasn't like he was daring the press to take him down - he was daring the press.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. He had the nomination locked up and probably could have won the presidency if it wasn't for his ineptness. Like Bill, it seems when it looks like they've got it in their grasps, they fuck it up and lose it.

The difference is that Bill had enough gas in the tank to weather some major storms. Hart didn't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. Hart was essentially caught in flagrante delicto, and in the midst of a campaign...

That's what wrecked him...

Clinton had more time to come up with a story and dissemble...

[ieoeja]

146. Polls showed nobody gave a f*** about his en flagrante delicto.

Dropping out of the race then jumping back in only after getting those poll results made him look weak. And people do not want a weak President.

I often thought Hart is the reason Bill was nominated the next time around. I was undecided in '92. When Bill refused to back down after the Flowers revelation, I threw my support behind him. And I did so in large part contrasting his reaction with Hart's in the previous election.

One problem pols have is listening to the loud voices. They take the Pearl Clutchers seriously. The bulk of us laugh at them.

[Drunken Irishman]

150. Possible. But some candidates can weather the storm better than others...

Hart had the charisma to probably do it. But John Edwards was so quickly undone by his affair that he became toxic - and remains so. Maybe it was the fact his wife was dying that did him in, and truthfully, it probably hurt a lot, but I think even without a sick Elizabeth, he doesn't have near the bounce back Clinton did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Citation please/NT

[Major Hogwash]

25. Plus, on top of that, Hart was more liberal than Mondale in 1984.

Much more liberal.
He wouldn't have laughed at Reagan's comebacks during the debates the way Mondale did, either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I read the article you cited...Could you please direct me to this:

Rice admitted to being a paid "consultant" and was there to destroy Hart.

They had an affair like lots of folks do and he got busted.


Here are two more contemporaneous accounts of the affair with first hand witnesses:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html?_r=1


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article2185644.html

[H2O Man]

33. Very good.

I'm very glad that you posted this. It is one of what has unfortunately become a footnote to political history -- though it really wasn't that long ago.

Hart was indeed set up. And Rice was playing a game, "taking one for the team," so to speak. If anyone bothers to look at her life -- and she's been public about it, so it's not "spying" -- it is evident what team she's on. And it surely isn't the Democratic Party.

Hart did play a role in this "scandal," of course. Had he been running for the office of Pope, it might have been worthy of consideration. (He'd have had my vote.)

That the Nixon machine had hired "call girls" to lure Democrats, both in 1968 and '72, is so well documented, that no one questions it seriously. That the same basic tactic was used, with a "pure and wholesome" gal like Ms. Rice, shouldn't puzzle people.

But it does puzzle many otherwise intelligent folks. Why? My theory is that they are not familiar with Hart's outstanding work in uncovering the extent of the rot that became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. There were forces at play that were determined to prevent Hart from becoming President. Sad, that, because he was a uniquely qualified politician.

[elleng]

5. 'Hart anticipates that O’Malley, 52 — who can point to a progressive record

and is more comfortable with retail politics than Clinton — will use similar themes against the frontrunner more than fifteen years his senior. “I think he’ll draw a generational distinction, just because it’s obvious. I think he will pursue this search for new leadership theme,” Hart said.

To that effect, he pointed to Barack Obama — who harnessed energy from the liberal base in 2008 and became competitive through his online fundraising — as a potential model. “So, could a Martin O’Malley do that? Possibly. If he develops an identity and a persona that a number of those searching 50 percent can identify with,” Hart said, arguing that Obama “had a depth of feeling, understanding and thoughtfulness that very few political leaders had.”

While O’Malley won’t be able to compete dollar-for-dollar with Clinton, according to Hart the former governor could remain competitive if he earns enough small-donor online contributions to compete in early states and gain momentum.'

[Thinkingabout]

62. Martin O'Malley is classified as a left liberal, both EW and HRC are classified as

Hard Core Liberal, O'Malley is closer to the center.

[elleng]

66. I've seen some classifications,

and I must wonder about classifying HRC as Hard Core Liberal, considering her relations with wall street and her hawklike approach to foreign policy.

[Thinkingabout]

72. She gives speeches to Wall Street and gets paid nicely for her work, we get paid for our labor,

Football players gets paid for their work. Would you turn down $200,000 to give a speech?

She is able to make decisions to protect this country, something lacking with others.

[jeff47]

91. I can classify someone as a ham sandwich if I like.

There are attempts to classify people based on concrete actions, such as votes in Congress. They're universally awful.

The problem is you're now only measuring people against the legislation that came to the floor. Not what they really believe.

In addition, your classification system would put someone who votes against a bill because "it isn't liberal enough" as a conservative - they voted against a "liberal" bill.

[elleng]

92. Right, and 'classifying' former senator/sec.state and senator

alongside of former governor not exactly apples to apples.

and one never knows what anyone else REALLY 'believes.' NOT POSSIBLE to judge on this.

[Thinkingabout]

95. It is their stand on issues, I did not classify either, their voting records and statements are used

Hillary had time in the Senate and voted. O'Malley has made statements and either signed bills or vetoed them. They have both been on the campaign trails at some time.

[Thinkingabout]

94. I did not do the classifying. It to s based on their voting record and statements.

[jeff47]

97. And that changes exactly nothing about what I said.

Voting record only applies to bills that actually made it to the floor. You get flagged as "liberal" for voting for the ACA, whether you are Ben Nelson or a single-payer advocate.

And if you are a single-payer advocate and voted against the ACA because it wasn't single payer, you are voting against a "liberal" bill and you are labeled "more conservative".

[elleng]

107. Right, and all the matters that arise before governors

not exactly subject to left/right, more like did it work? Did it solve a problem?

For example, O'Malley's so-called 'rain tax,': Left? Right? Useful? Did it work?

'The “storm management fee,” passed by the state legislature in 2012, will go into effect on July 1 following a decree from Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley.

But first, a little background :

In 2010 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called “impervious surfaces,” anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

The 10 areas affected by the “rain tax” include Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Hartford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties, and Baltimore city.

“Fees will be calculated on the surface area of properties as the theory is that roofs, driveways and carparks create more potential for drainage problems and water contamination,” Metro explains.'

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/11/heres-whats-included-in-marylands-controversial-rain-tax-its-exactly-what-it-sounds-like/ (a right-wing publication)

[elleng]

112. and this, posted today, linked from theatlantic about HRC:

Goldman Sachs' New York headquarters, where the former secretary of state spoke to executives recently:

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. How much will the Republicant's be spending?

And isn't it incumbent upon us to match them?

[pnwmom]

20. We'd be idiots not to try to match them. n/t

[freshwest]

96. They'll have at least $900M from the Koches alone. Plus other GOP criminals will donate.

Only with a progressives, and in this era the last ones left in office are Democrats, can restore campaign finance reform. But only with a veto proof majority in the House of Representatives can do this. CU has made this ugly reality for us.

[Thinkingabout]

35. EW spent $42 million on a senate seat, this is just one state

Now multiple by 50, it costs lots of money for a campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. And a not very large one to boot . /NT

[NewJeffCT]

71. square mileage wise, Massachusetts is not big

but, it is #14 overall in population and Boston is one of the priciest media markets in the country.

[freshwest]

121. The mind boogles! n/t

[Cryptoad]

11. This Must be an,,,

endorsement of Ted Cruz.... since he is the only other candidate running at this time?

[misterhighwasted]

64. Appears that way.

[freshwest]

98. Or the Koches, as they are giving nearly a billion alone. Other GOP crooks will push that to $1B+.

That will be used for any GOP running, they aren't picky with their surrogates.

[DURHAM D]

14. LOL

says the man who never paid off his own campaign debts

[Hokie]

56. One smart mofo

One smart mofo would have found another boat with a better name.

[pnwmom]

18. Right. Because the Dem should unilaterally disarm and let Bush or Cruz spend his billions. n/t

[spanone]

21. anyone think republicans will spend less?

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. The nominee is irrelevant. He or she will have to raise 1.5 billion at minimum to be competative

Citizens United and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission has created this system.

I would bet it will be a 5 bllion dollar election, once all the spending by all interested parties is counted and it may be as high as 6 billion with all the local, state, and fedeal elecitons, including the primaries.

[misterhighwasted]

36. Agree. 6 billion isn't a stretch either.

Wonder who's minding the electronic voting machines. Or who's reprogramming them for 2016.
DEMS have their work cut out for them.

[Thinkingabout]

37. I think you are right. Just like computers are faster and bigger, campaigns are expensive

[Agnosticsherbet]

42. In San Diego, the cost of local Mayoral and city council campigns has exploded.

Much of it is outside money.

If it costs a million or more to run for city council is El Cajon or San Diego it is not the size of the campaign, but the willingess of people and groops with really deep pockets to control who is in power at every level.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Reality did not arrive to Gary Hart, it is a changed world now.

I am surprised at Robert Reich, a seemly smart person say there isn't a need to get money from Wall Street, WTH does he think it is going to come from, the 90% of which do not have enough money to make it to the next paycheck. We need some reality.

[hifiguy]

65. And this is why Bernie is my first choice.

Though I would also happy with Senator Watten.

Bernie GETS IT!

[liberal_at_heart]

48. If Hillary wants to impress me, she can donate her campaign money to the poor.

Otherwise, nothing she says will mean anything.

[misterhighwasted]

68. The Clinton Foundation does exactly that. And it is quite impressive

Nt

[liberal_at_heart]

73. We should be protesting the amount of money both parties are spending on campaigning.

We keep cutting social services and giving the rich tax cuts and this is what they do with it. This is why both parties are owned by the rich and we the people no longer have any real representation in DC.

[L0oniX]

86. LMFAO

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

137. It certainly does a lot of good. I just wish the Clintons were a little more particular about whose contributions they take.

[misterhighwasted]

144. Do agree on that point. Ok with contributions from questionable

.countries IF those countries are willing to recognize a more equal society & change towards that.
And only IF.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

149. Yes, but many are Arab countries & atrocious re rights of women, gays, etc. Shocked Hillary didn't speak out more against such attricities. Maybe takin their $ had somethin 2 do w/ it.

[Fumesucker]

51. And where does a great deal of that money from both sides end up?

In the deep, deep pockets of the Media giants.

[liberal_at_heart]

53. +1

[Hokie]

55. Sounds like some Monkey Business to me

Gary blew his chance or visa versa.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. There's an old saw "that a man is only as loyal as his opportunities."

Not sure I buy it in toto though.

[misterhighwasted]

67. Set up for scandal. That's the GOP m.o.

He could have said no thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. This wasn't a honey trap...He just wanted to get laid.

Weems recalled going aboard Monkey Business on the last weekend of March for the same impromptu party at which Hart and his pal Billy Broadhurst, a Louisiana lawyer and lobbyist, met up with Rice, but in her version of events, Hart was hitting on her, not on Rice, and he was soused and pathetic, and she wanted nothing to do with him, but still he followed her around the boat, hopelessly enthralled. . . .

But Donna — she had no standards, Weems told me. Weems figured Donna wanted to be the next Marilyn Monroe, sleeping her way into the inner sanctum of the White House, and that’s why she agreed to go on the cruise to Bimini. After that weekend, Donna wouldn’t shut up about Hart or give the pictures a rest. It all made Weems sick to her stomach, especially this idea of Hart’s getting away with it and becoming president. “What an idiot you are!” Weems said, as if talking to Hart through the years. “You’re gonna want to run the country? You moron!”



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html?_r=2


I call em like I see em...She was no more of a plant than Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and all Of FDR's, JFK's, and LBJ's paramours.


That doesn't mean they weren't great leaders...However they were fortunate enough not to get caught in flagrante delicto

Theodore White said of all the major politicians he covered the only ones he would attest to their fidelity were Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and George Romney.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. So he wanted to get laid? So what?

Why do we hold our Presidents up to some Puritan sexual standard?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. I don't... I voted for him in 84...

What destroyed his campaign wasn't that he had affairs but that he was caught in a current one...

[betterdemsonly]

135. because Bill was innocent and virginal

and can be guaranteed never to do this sort of thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. Reading comprehension is fundamental

"I call em like I see em...She was no more of a plant than Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and all Of FDR's, JFK's, and LBJ's paramours."

-DemocratSinceBirth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

132. No, I think that was Donna Rice.

[colsohlibgal]

69. Bernie Rocks

I see the center as screwing regular people a bit less than the right - at this point in time. Big money runs Hillary and every republican. Who thinks Hillary is going to go hard after any of her big donors once elected?

If you are an everyday middle class citizen you should be for Bernie. I will vote for him if he's in my primary. If Hillary is nominated I will vote for Jill Stein of the Green party. I'm done voting against the lesser evil, I'm voting for who will give everyday people a break, for who won't make me feel like a sellout.

Not much, in my opinion, is going to change under our current two party system with legalized bribery running it all. As is we can do some good paying a lot more attention to local and state elections instead of just presidential elections - we're dropping the ball there.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Why?

It's only 20% more than Obama's campaign spent in 2008. Given the fact we now have to deal with Citizens United, she will probably have to raise more than that to be competitive.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

134. I agree, especially with the added cost of hundreds of advisors to tell Hillary what she should say, do, wear, etc. That shit is expensive.

[ibewlu606]

78. Kicked!

You're damn right I'm frightened. I'm frightened of Dems who are willing to give corporate whores like Obama and HRC a pass just for the sake of having someone with a D behind their name in the White House.

[misterhighwasted]

81. Corporate "whores" ?? WoW please tone down the disgusting name calling.

However you feel about Obama Clinton or any other Dem that runs for President.
Whores??

[L0oniX]

85. +99% ...and I hope you don't get a hide.

[L0oniX]

84. Obviously this election will be a mamoth corruption of our system by money ...but

they still want my vote. After they get that then it's back under the Greyhound. Total fucking boring and pathetic.

[840high]

109. Disgusting - isn't it?

[Peregrine Took]

88. I'm sick of these folks buying elections. Just like $40,000,000. Rahm here in Chicago...

going against neighborhood guy, Chuy Garica. I will never vote for one of them.

[quadrature]

93. when a Hillary ad runs on TV ...

or when Hillary makes a personal appearance...

does she gain or lose votes?

[sabrina 1]

102. It does! n/t

[hedda_foil]

103. Where are the Roosevelt's, Where are the Truman's, for heaven's sake?

Hart is similarly unimpressed with the Senate, which he says is “degrees lower in quality, person to person” than when he served two terms in the 1970s and 1980s. He pointed to a “sadness” in the country, of a leadership gap created by politicians who “demean themselves to beg for money” from an establishment donor class and a political media that feeds it.

“We’re narrowing it to fewer and fewer people,” Hart said, lamenting the current political environment. “And they’re smaller people. Where are the Roosevelts? Where are the Harry Trumans, for heaven’s sake?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html#ixzz3WUhLyjAv

[still_one]

108. Gee Gary, did I hear you complaining about the romney campaign,or Koch brothers?

Maybe you did, but if you did it is no surprise that politico would only report your comments that reflect negatively on the Democrats

It was only a week ago Howard Dean was saying the Obama administration should walk away from the Irian talks on Joe Scarbourgh(sic)

So why do prominent Democrats find a need to critisize Democrats on medium that tilts to the right?

Even though the point may be legitimate in regard to campaign wealth, it is pervasive within the whole system, which is why citizens United was outrageous. I don't recall if Hart mad public statements about that. I do recall that Mr. Hart told the press hat he had nothing to hide, just before he was caught in a hotel room with Donna Rice. What does that have to do his comments on Politico? It has to do with good judgement. There is a time and a place for everything.

When the Hart Rudman report came out warning of Terrorists attacks and the risk from AQ, commissioned by the Clinton administration, and the bush/Cheney administration threw that report in the garbage when they took office, I didn't hear you or Rudman criticizing the bush administration for ignoring that report after 9/11, really confuses me about Harts sense of proportion

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. One small correction...

He wasn't caught in a hotel room with Ms. Rice but a yacht and then his DC townhouse.

[still_one]

117. I am getting older, my memory of these affairs isn't as good as it used to be, thanks

[freshwest]

122. Wow, I didn't know he was two time loser. I thought it was the yacht only.

Wonder if he's on the Koch payroll of disgruntled former elected officials now?

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. the Billion Dollar Jeb Bush campaign scares me more than she!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

120. This ^ ^ ^

[freshwest]

123. No, it'll be Cruz. A dark horse candidate is what they need. Rabies not a problem, either. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. No it won't....to Republicans Money is GOD...and makes you king...

and Jeb has all the money already....nearly all of it!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

136. Jebbie shares many of the same donors as Hillary, which is no less disgusting. Wall Street doesn't really care who wins and THAT is what should scare people.

[Nye Bevan]

118. Whoa. Gary Hart? Now there's a blast from the past.

He must be getting on a bit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. Yeah...he's who I want to take political advice and prognostication from !

[djean111]

126. Both billion-plus campaigns disgust me. The money, the people, the fact that the money overrides

any principles, everything. Just sell the presidency on eBay and be honest about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Can I make a request of Candidate Clinton?

If she's really going to spend a Billion dollars, can she PLEASE use at least some of it to get some better music?

For the love of God... PLEASE.

[davidpdx]

128. Campaign finance in general is getting out of hand

I predict that Clinton will have a billion dollars in her war chest the day she announces and raise another billion. We all know Bush has pretty big backers as well. It doesn't take an idiot to see this is going to be Clinton vs. Bush.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

133. Sad but true - pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with politics.

[joeybee12]

139. That's right Hilary, don't raise money...the Repukes aren't doing it...

Yes, there is way too much money in politics, IMHO, money is at the root of the problem...but Hart needs to take out his scorn on the Supreme Court and the Crotch Brothers.

[brooklynite]

141. Is Gary hart proposing we unilaterally disarm?

I suspect every candidate would be happy to have publicly funded campaigns. We don't, and we can't get them for this cycle. The Republicans are playing by the current rules; so should we.

[Historic NY]

142. Doesn't matter who is running thats the price...

expected for this election-selection process. The 2012 elections cost over 2 billion. Complain all you want if your horse in the race can't raise it then your not going to win. That's the reality.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/2012-presidential-election-cost_n_2254138.html

[NCTraveler]

145. Lets see how a one million dollar campaign does against the R's.

This is non-sense. Billion dollar campaigns and our current campaign laws frighten me. Has nothing to do with Hillary at all. If this person was to make any sense at all, wouldn't it be the fact that Jeb could probably get a billion in support that should frighten him. Clintons name has no place in this article if it was being done in honest.

[Gothmog]

147. It costs at least a billion dollars to run a campaign post Citizens United

The only way to be competitive in this post Citizens United world is to be able to raise this type of money

[Beacool]

152. I have one question for Hart,

Isn't he frightened by how much money the Republicans will spend in 2016?

Any Democratic nominee will need to raise a billion plus dollars to compete with the money that will pour in for Republicans thanks to Citizens United.