Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommentorAdHoc (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 12 February 2016 (→irregularities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:19, 12 February 2016 by CommentorAdHoc (talk | contribs) (→irregularities)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis 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

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

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. Sections 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)

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:

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)

irregularities

The recent revelations that the Clinton foundation received purported donations from Russians state-owned companies during MS Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and the fact that approved the sale of mines to Uranium one who`s Chairman has allegedly donated million to the Clinton should be mention here thus I would recommend forming a new section for this as the current Campaign finance irregularities section only cover matters pertaining to her campaign. what do you guys think?Creator Xavier (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What did any of that have to do with her 2008 campaign? 70.215.77.171 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly an issue worthy of a subsection in this article, in light of some new information and some of the newer reports; and not necessarily just the issue Creator Xavier mentioned, but the alleged illegal fundraising, the Jeffrey E. Thompson involvement, and failure to disclose relevant info to the Federal Election Commission may warrant it. Also, why aren't you signing your posts? (I am referring to 70.215.77.171). CommentorAdHoc (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Columnist

The article states the following:

Columnist Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the "likeability" issue was inextricably associated with gender, as Clinton's "stridency can grate even on those who agree with her ideas" and that "she is visibly salivating from hunger. That may be OK for male candidates, whose appetites tend to be selling points. But if there's anything that's drilled into women's heads before we're old enough to even ask for something, it's the importance of playing hard to get, of pretending we don't want anything at all."

The source is written by a professional journalist, but the author is listed under "Columnists & Critics" under the "Opinion" sub-header. WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

If this is a primary source as WP:NEWSORG suggests, it seems like it would be UNDUE, unless secondary sources suggest her opinion is of special importance or it falls under some other criteria where primary sources are acceptable. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting article. A regular three-ring circus, wasn't it? I had forgotten all this stuff - it seems hard to believe that it wasn't that long ago... Yes, I agree, and I'd delete the wording that you mention. Gandydancer (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you plan to make this edit? Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: I'll trim it now. I was initially hoping more editors would comment. The reason I looked this up is because I was surprised there was so much support for using a columnist here even though the policy against them seems pretty clear. I wanted to see how editors respond when their judgement isn't clouded by a COI disclosure and make sure removing them is actually consensus under ordinary circumstances. I use to do a lot of cleanup by doing searches for "industry-leading" or searching for pay for play awards to find promotional articles and now that that well has dried up, I'm thinking of doing searches based on sources like columns that would lend themselves to this kind of material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I trust your judgement--not mine. I suppose it could be argued. I've been here for a long time and I can hardly stand to argue anymore. There is a small group of editors that make an argument a learning lesson for all which leaves me with a good feeling, but I just can't deal with a certain hardcore group that makes it a miserable experience anymore. Gandydancer (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories: