I’d say that’s about right. I’m just as dumbfounded as Shayna is. How could someone not care the way a candidate runs their campaign?
I really don’t think the campaign debt thing has made the mainstream media, actually. The only place I see or hear anything about it is here or Daily Kos.
Which is interesting. It’s a big story that could be considered scandalous. The media usually jumps all over this stuff.
So why aren’t they? Would they if it were Obama who was in debt? Are they blatantly biased in favor of HC, or just don’t want the race to end?
It’s not exciting or sexy, especially to people who are barely aware of the primary season in the first place. To US, it’s the pinnacle of a mountain of crap that’s come to rest on Clinton’s head in the last four months. But most of the US probably isn’t even aware there’s a primary still going on.
Folks online, especially politically-oriented folks online, are a self-selecting group. You cannot extrapolate anything about the general population by looking at the news stories we’re following. We political Dopers and the folks at DailyKos are heavily invested in the political world right now, but most people aren’t. Period.
Frankly, the few people I know who are pro-Hillary don’t care one whit about how poorly she’s run her campaign, how much of a liar she is, or how much she dances on the head of a pin and refuses to give a straight answer on anything she’d do if elected. Either they think her heart’s in the right place, or that she put up with Bill or has otherwise paid her dues and therefore deserves it, or they are in favor of her because she’s a woman.
And the funny (i.e., infuriating) thing is, bring up any of her lies and/or shortcomings and they smile and agree and freely admit that you’re right…but they still like her anyway.
Cripes! :smack:
ETA: And what jayjay said. Most people just aren’t that tuned in. They’re going about their lives, working to pay the bills and running their kids to ball games, and most of what they hear they get from the evening news.
Starving Artist, if you keep agreeing with me I’m going to start second-guessing myself…
Nah…just relax and go with the flow. You’ll like it here on the dark side. 
Really? As a public service, here you go…
The Politico.com
firstread.msnbc.com
blogs.abcnews.com
polipundit.com
themoderatevoice.com
truthdig.com
balloon-juice.com
codewolf.com
economist.com
pamshouseblend.com
thebluestate.com
stuckon-stupid.com
and of course…
Yeah, most are blogs, but I’m just sayin’…
I only really read DailyKos in that category, actually. And as you said, most are blogs, not really anything people in general America are seeing.
Fair enough, Sir. Here are a few non blogs for your perusing pleasure…
nbc24.com
washingtontimes.com
nydailynews.com
nypost.com
All I’m saying is it’s out there, and her supporters don’t seem to care. I don’t get the impression it’s not being reported.
Why the media isn’t making a much bigger deal about Clinton’s deadbeatery is a better question, and also easily answerable. It’s all about the cash. If the nominating process remains a horse race the media makes more money. Railing about the Clinton’s money woes too strongly can influence voters against her in upcoming primaries, potentially knocking her out earlier than the media deems necessary. It’s simply in their financial best interests that Hillary remains viable for as long as possible.
It may not be exciting or sexy, but lots of attention-grabbing human-interest stories that get people’s attention aren’t. They’re about either very bad shit (usually) or very good shit (occasionally) happening to people that ordinary people can relate to.
And this is right in the wheelhouse for this sorta thing - major public figure who’s raked in $100M in the past several years is stiffing dozens of small businesspersons who need the money to meet their next payroll.
C’mon, tell me nobody can sell the hard-luck story of those stiffed people, and the contrast with the golden lady who’s giving them the shaft. If there were a way I could claim the IP rights to all variants on the Hillary-stiffing-creditors story, I’d take a leave of absence from my job, and write it and push it myself.
I think that’s an unfair analogy. Winning an arm-wrestling contest requires a unique set of skills, and you’d want a candidate with that set of skills. Winning a winner-take-all contest requires virtually identical skills to winning a proportional system; it’s just that the proportional system gives results that are more democratic. A candidate who wins a proportional system vote more accurately reflects the candidate who, in the public opinion, has the skills necessary to win the winner-take-all system.
Daniel
I used to think Bill Clinton was smart. But I’m really starting to doubt it. The whole, “I misspoke” defense of Tuzla is just objectively false. It was in Hillary’s prepared notes, and she said it multiple times. Some story, any story, would have been better than misspoke. False memory? Why not false memory? That is at least defensible. Anyway, olds news.
But…
…then Bill comes out today attacking the media for spinning the incident, restating the “misspoke” defense. Link. Nothing about that is politically intelligent. It re-ignites an issue that is dying down. It re-states an objectively false defense of the issue. And it continues to antagonize the media. Even if the some of the people in the audience he was speaking to were duped, surely a semi-intelligent politician would realize the tactical idiocy of re-raising this issue.
So what gives? Is he just so invested in Hillary winning that he’s lost all sense of political skills? Or does he want her to lose, or what?
He’s just gotten real used to that good Senator lovin’. He won’t be getting any of that in the WH. He remembers how all he ever had time for was a quick hummer and a cigar; and sometimes time was so short that…
Okay, I’ll stop. Brain bleach is in the cupboard under the bathroom sink. First door on your right.
He’s been out of the game, the game has changed, and the combination’s not been kind to him.
Out of the game: seven years’ vacation from everyday politics has seemingly caused him to lose his political instincts.
The game’s changed: maybe he’s aware in a basic sense that the Internet is sort of like what it is, but he clearly hasn’t internalized what that has come to mean for politics, with the recent past (and much of the distant past even) being instantly on tap, and foldable into a YouTube that exposes BS that wouldn’t have been widely detected in 1999.
The multiplying lies of the Clintons do swarm upon 'im!
With apologies to William S. 
Not quite.
The choice of how to deploy campaign resources is key in a winner-take-all system. A proportional system is more forgiving of error; it permits a candidate to “spread it around” without penalizing the candidate much for wrong calculations.
How much time do candidates in the general election spend campaigning in Wyoming or Hawaii?
With a proportional reward for delegates, every state becomes significant, and Senator Obama has used that fact to great advantage. I think this shows superior organizational skill on his part, because the proportional award system was not a secret to the Clinton campaign – but you can’t suggest they’re nearly identical in approach.
By the way – it looks like Clinton picked up a superdelegate, the newly-sworn-in Jackie Speier:
Not quite.
Interesting article on feminism and the Democratic race at HuffingtonPost
However, what really caught my eye was one of the comments (which of course may not be true, but…)
I stand corrected.