Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:28, 24 July 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Hillary Rodham Clinton, due to size or style considerations. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Archives

/Archive 1

To make the overall article shorted, I am suggesting . . .

1. Create a new article focusing on Hillary Clinton's campaign finance irregularities, this section is huge, and can easily be its own article?

2. Remove the entire section on opinion polling, does not seem significant given the space limitations?

Any thought by anyone on these two suggestions? It is me i think (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be okay to link the polling section to Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 and Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential candidates, which also have a bunch more links. Grsz 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion It is me i think (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Many sections have been added, which maybe at the time 2007, we more notable, than they in time. Some of these sections have just 2 lines about the topic. I think we should look at cutting some of this. Section suggested for removal:

Early Opposition from Two Sides

Discussion of Iraq War

Threat

Polling trends, this sections covers April 07 through May 4, 2007 polling info. If we talk about this data it should be in a larger context.

First Campaign trip with Bill maybe notable, but I suggest under her personal bio. It is a notable event, former fist lady on first campaign trip with husband former President. No one else in America history can say that, and the media and public acknowledge this, but the first campaign trip maybe better in personal bio.

Later debates

Fears of backlash

prompted queries

Maya Angelous, why is she so notable of all the other endorsements, I did leave the Kennedy reference here, but the Kennedy clan is much more notable, I think. It is me i think (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about getting rid of 2007 events. Remember that Hillary started out 2007 as the clear front-runner. By 3/4 of the way through 2007, her campaign was flying high and Obama was behind by huge margins in polls. By the end of 2007, her campaign was in trouble, and Obama was about to win Iowa, and soon thereafter would pass her. Much of the story of this campaign lies in what happened in 2007, not 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the excessive length in this article comes from inflated descriptions of the primary contests. The "Wisconsin and Hawaii" section is a big offender ("Calm, composed, collected, Chelsea didn't miss a beat"), as is "Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont" (too much on endorsements). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what parts do you feel, if any, should be removed. It is me i think (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with this article is not its length, but that it can't see the forest for the trees. Assuming that Hillary goes on to lose the nomination, the big questions the article has to answer are, How? Why? She started the campaign with every apparent advantage — organizational support, name recognition and heir apparent status, experience, standing in the polls, fundraising, etc. — yet here we are, and she's been essentially reduced to running an insurgency campaign — behind, short on funds, party backing deserting her, forced to go on the attack, etc. How did this happen? What and when were the key turning points? What were the underlying reasons for what happened? Once you approach the article that way, its organization and length will fall into place. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say that the "big problem with this article is not its length ...". Wow! I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes I wonder whether the length of the article is meant for other seminal U.S. leaders, such as, General George Washington, Abraham lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson. She is just the latest contemporary Senator who has a strong following (amongst some). She's hardly more than that - and - now that the fervor has diminished - someone needs to prune the tree. I'm not volunteeering because I know all of my edits will be reverted.Oxfordden (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a historic nomination race by a number of metrics — length of contest (unusual for the modern era), closeness of contest, number of votes cast, first woman and first African American to do so well, etc. It deserves good coverage here. As for comparing amount of coverage to other subjects on Misplaced Pages, that's the quick road to insanity. The Simpsons, Star Wars, Pokemon, etc. all get coverage that dwarfs that for any political figure. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely - you jest. Al Gore, JFK, and Hayes can attest to the closeness of elections more than anyone (although you'll argue primary versus general). Moreover, in regards to achieving metrics, the Guinness Book of World Records can also boasts a number of firsts as well - but - there contributions to any socially redeeming quality or practical relevance are questionable. In the end, the plan to continue the Clinton campaign has left a trail of illogical fallacies that is contrary to the intended historical record her supporters wish to portend. I'm rather delighted to watch the drama before us - specifically - the history of the first Black or oldest President. A more impactful history, don't ya think? Oxfordden (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're still learning how to write an article about SUCH a recentism-heavy topic. New stuff happens every day. It's difficult to immediately put events into context, despite (or because of) the constant attempts to do so by cable news, the internet, etc. I am as guilty as anyone of trying to mention things that I *think* are important, and I hope that after the campaign is over, we will have more sober analysis from reliable news sources as well as better perspective ourselves. I imagine that books will be written on the topic, which always helps. Hindsight being 20/20 may be a good thing in this case. It was a little easier with the McCain articles, because the campaign didn't go on very actively after February 5. That's three extra months of daily drama, and it results in a muddled article. I don't blame WP editors, I just hope it's an experience that informs future articles about extremely fluid stories. Paisan30 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the scrollbar for the references (the 500 references!!) and organized the pictures better to save some space  iDosh!  talk? 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Except scrollboxes are not allowed in article space due to GFDL issues per this TFD. I reverted that change. --Bobblehead 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

menopausal Clinton???

A visibly menopausal Clinton lashed out February 22 at Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false". (look down to reference 337)

Vandalism, now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

HRC invokes RFK assassination

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,' she said, dismissing calls to drop out."

These comments have been repeated and analyzed by virtually every news agency and web blog that have been covering the democratic primary race. Any comments? Marylandstater (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?hp|title=Clinton’s Reference to Slaying of Robert Kennedy Stirs Uproar|last=Seelye|first=Katharine Q.|date=2008-05-24|publisher=New York Times|accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1058940.aspx|title=HILLARY INVOKES RFK ASSASSINATION |last=Murray|first=Mark|date=2008-05-24|publisher=MSNBC|accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html|title=Clinton Kennedy Assassination Reference: Raises Bobby's Death To Explain Why She Stays In Race|date=2008-05-23|publisher= HuffingtonPost|accessdate=2008-05-24}}</ref>

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? This are very important developments. Anyways, I think it's despicable what she said. How dare she try to evoke an assassination and give us hints that she's waiting for "something" to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those totally stupid remarks that every candidate makes once in a while, given the stress and fatigue of the long campaign trail, that they then immediately apologize for. It can go into the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article, but doesn't merit inclusion here in the main article unless the effects of it loom large and last longer than a couple of days. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Whoops, I lost track of which Talk page I was at. Yes, it merits a mention here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time, I strongly disagree with you, this is not due to fatigue, and if she can`t handle the stess of the campaign, what a president would she make?? No, this is a very logical rational of hers and it needs to be pointed out very clearly! See : Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday invoked the 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in explaining her decision to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination,.... from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/24/ST2008052400166.html 79.210.106.87 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Every candidate says stupid or badly phrased things. Obama would like to take "bitter" back, I'm sure! If Hillary had just said, "the 1968 race was still close in June", she would have made the same point and no one would have thought twice about it. I've added this to the article, using the full context of the Argus Leader quote as well as the WaPo article you cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(Excue my brief blog); In 1992, Bill Clinton had the Democratic presidential nomination rapped up before June. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Has been added. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we not mention Peter Paul?

Yes its true Hillary bankrupt Peter Paul and placed him in a Coulumbian prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.105.91 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Paul was in American prisons several times for various felonies such as fraud, cocaine possession, and violating parole, all long before he had anything to do with Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Clinton ending presidential campagin?

There's word on CTV (a Canadian network), that Clinton isn't campaigning in Montana or South Dakota. But has returned to New York. Should this be mentioned in the article, or is it just another rumour. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because Clinton is not currently actively campaigning in MT or SD right now does not mean that her campaign is over. Obama didn't actively campaign in WV or PR in the final days leading up to their primaries and didn't give his election night speech from those states and that didn't mean he was ending his campaign. The only thing one can surmise from Clinton's move back to NY is that she has moved back to NY. Anything about her ending her campaign is purely speculative until Clinton says "I'm ending my campaign." --Bobblehead 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus clinton said she would be in New York for Tuesday nights results, anything else would be speculation. Especially as she doesnt seem to be slowing down her campaign, unless Dean and Pelosi convince enough superdelegates to publicly come out soon. You may see a brokered convention. Pat (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

..... anything else would be speculation . Especially as she doesnt seem to be slowing down ...

You bash someones statement as speculation and then in the next sentence you speculate yourself !! Congratulation !! 79.210.110.13 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i think this article has too many details. we need to think about cutting down on this when her campaign is over. We should also not forget it is an encyclopedia not a forum.Docku (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Shes reportedly conceiding defeat tonight,, She gave up.Fedarated AK74-u (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How do we cover people with an embarassing association to Obama on the Obama bio page?

Editors of this article may have some knowledge and interest in a discussion going on now about how much information should Obama's bio article have on his embarassing associates -- Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko. The talk page now has an important discussion about this (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details, and a comparison of WP coverage of Hillary Clinton has come up in that discussion. It's possible (not enormously likely) that discussion there could influence how this page is edited.

Some editors think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Other examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but the discussion will move to Wright and Rezko. Again, please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus. Noroton (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gossip and the like

I've removed a reference to a gossip website. Such sites are obviously not reliable sources. I suggest that it might be in order to comb this article and remove statements that are not reliably sourced. Moreover in the case of this particular removed reference its relationship to the subject of this article seems to me very tenuous indeed; as far as I'm aware, Hillary Clinton and Sharon Stone are different people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole entry is quite messy. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortened page to 64 kilobytes

Just by creating 2 more articles. What about it? Paper Luigi 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you're supposed to discuss it here first and get a consensus before actually doing it. And what you did is a violation of WP:Summary style's requirements for summary sections. And you left several busted references in each new article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Added palin issue

Please feel free to edit, but please leave basic points. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I hereby propose that Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008 and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign developments, 2007 be merged into this article. Most of the material there already exists on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 , since it was originally a branch of that page, but htat move was revered by consensus. There might not be anything salvageable there Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008, but someone familiar with the topic can check that out.

It is potentially a POV-fork, since it is merely a listing of primaries and caucuses that Hillary won, as opposed to ones that Obama won. This material is better suited for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 or a general discussion about the Democratic Primaries and Caucuses. --HoboJones (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You've misread the situation (it describes all the primaries and caucuses, not just the ones she won, and that material is not in this article). But I do plan to revise all the Hillary campaign material, and to get this all back to one article ... there's no reason we can't describe a campaign that didn't even with the nomination, in one article! But haven't had the time yet, what with work on McCain, Biden, Ferraro (readership spike due to Palin) and Keating Five (readership spike due to current financial crisis). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I see what happened. Well, maybe someone will see the MERGETO templates and take the bold initiatve to merge them.--HoboJones (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleged sexist statement

Someone keeps deleting "No woman has ever won the nomination of a major party in the history of U.S. presidential elections," citing sexist NPOV. Huh? If you want rid of it, you need to get a consensus.,[ ,, --HoboJones (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest things I've seen yet. Of course, it was very notable that she was trying to be the first major party female nominee ever. There was a lot of attention paid to this aspect. I don't understand what basis this person is claiming it's sexist, feminist, pov, or anything else. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodham

I think this should be moved back to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, as that is the name she most frequently goes by. Moderate2008 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was changed by someone because she just used "Hillary Clinton" in the campaign. I don't have strong feelings either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of "Hillary, The Movie" ?

It will be in front of the Supreme Court next term... seems like it should be included here.

Not sure if it was included, but has been removed?

Here is a link to info on the movie: http://www.hillarythemovie.com/

Wimfort (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is significant as a court case, and the Citizens United and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission articles mention it. But it had no significance on the campaign, and that's why it was never mentioned in the campaign article(s). Wasted Time R (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/03/clinton-race.html

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles